[0:09] That. All >> right. Good

[0:14] afternoon, everyone. Welcome to

[0:16] your city hall. I'd like to

[0:17] call to order this meeting

[0:18] of the salzer city council for

[0:20] the afternoon of august 18th.

[0:22] toni, would you please call the

[0:23] roll to me here, compose

[0:25] present today's here to win

[0:28] ortiz present mulcahy >> here.

[0:30] don kendall is here. Casey

[0:33] foley mehan >> here you have a

[0:36] quorum. Thank you. All right.

[0:37] now if you're able please stand

[0:38] and join us in the pledge

[0:40] of allegiance. I pledge

[0:45] allegiance to the flag >>

[0:47] of the united states of america

[0:49] and to the republic for which

[0:51] it stands one nation under god,

[0:54] indivisible, with liberty and

[0:56] justice for all. >> thank you

[1:03] and welcome once again. Today's

[1:05] invocation will be provided by

[1:07] ten fong taekwondo institute

[1:10] council member twan please tell

[1:11] us more. >> thank you very

[1:14] much, mayor. Good afternoon

[1:16] everyone. Today my office is

[1:19] pleased to present our >>

[1:20] second invocation of the month.

[1:21] we are especially honored to

[1:24] have a special performance >>

[1:26] prepared for us today thanks to

[1:28] tun fong and his taekwondo

[1:30] group. Taekwondo is a martial

[1:32] art that emphasized discipline,

[1:34] respect, perseverance and

[1:36] self-control beyond impressive

[1:39] techniques and physical skill.

[1:41] it teaches us the >> importance

[1:43] of focus, confidence and value

[1:46] that can inspire >> all of us

[1:48] in our daily lives. And

[1:50] of course >> we are very

[1:52] grateful they are here to

[1:53] demonstrate this skill to us

[1:55] today. I think it is safe to

[1:58] say that after watching this

[2:00] performance none of us will be

[2:02] volunteering to test their

[2:04] kicks. With that please join >>

[2:07] me in giving a warm welcome to

[2:09] ten fong and his taekwondo

[2:11] group >>

[3:07] . Take one look. Thank you

[3:18] both. >> I am the fastest way

[3:28] this race

[3:43] is to be awarded for the five.

[3:51] oh, my god. >> oh. Oh! Oh oh

[4:01] oh. 000. Oh. Oh oh. Oh. Oh. Oh

[4:25] yeah. >> oh oh. So. So far. So

[4:45] far. All right. Glad you're

[4:49] back on >> the official place.

[4:53] I've got to go back. >> thank

[5:01] you so. We start we started

[5:07] when you start to get started

[5:11] >> up on a bit out, right?

[5:13] yeah. We're going to be get a

[5:17] lot out natalie >> okay, now

[5:38] okay. Just >> gonna have fun.

[5:52] wow. Got nothing to come by but

[5:56] I think it's fun to be up loud

[6:02] oh yeah yeah okay yeah >> yeah

[6:10] oh yeah. Okay. So what what is

[6:21] it >> like what? Soccer got?

[6:31] let's go first. Is that what I

[6:33] talked about? Think back and

[6:36] come back and get back to the

[6:39] back but ready? Yeah. Get

[6:46] ready. Ready. Why don't you go?

[6:48] I don't know. Maybe. Yeah.

[6:53] ready to go? I think >> that

[6:59] this and >> like yeah, >> yeah.

[7:17] marvin >> come up and >> block

[7:27] up yeah of yeah that's just

[7:37] like that but this way just

[7:43] come back out now okay >>

[8:00] . It could be fun but I set >>

[8:06] you up. Yeah. Okay on it. Fun

[8:16] >> that I kind of like it. Yes,

[8:22] please. Yeah, yeah >>

[8:44] . But in front of I don't know

[8:52] which like that I mean it

[8:57] actually plaza yeah I have been

[9:02] out and you have to measure

[9:06] yeah it's good to have you have

[9:07] to tell us where I go very very

[9:12] fancy that's it but but but

[9:19] very close and yet like yeah >>

[9:31] that's what >> we we we >> like

[9:42] >> working now >>

[10:03] . Yeah so now let's know if

[10:12] that's your plan. Yeah. How you

[10:26] cook it right I mean you you

[10:33] now with left. Yeah >> like I'm

[10:54] lena

[11:06] yeah I'm 5000 yeah >>

[11:35] back and be like I through oh

[11:53] okay yeah >> yeah yeah

[12:24] okay and yeah yeah

[12:42] yeah so so yeah >>

[12:59] I'm not only the about >> the

[13:16] no but look there's not look >>

[13:23] okay >> thank you all very much

[13:32] again that was tom fong

[13:35] taekwondo institute thank you

[13:37] again council member dawn for

[13:38] arranging today's invocation.

[13:40] we'll do our ceremonial items.

[13:42] vice mayor foley, if you would

[13:43] join me at the podium we will

[13:44] recognize the bay area women's

[13:47] sports initiative also known as

[13:48] bossy >>

[14:14] . >> good afternoon. Today I'm

[14:17] >> here to recognize the bay

[14:18] area women's sports initiative

[14:21] for their continued success in

[14:22] advancing youth recreation.

[14:25] founded in 2005 bossy and you

[14:28] gotta love that acronym, don't

[14:30] you? >> women are bossy but

[14:34] they're also in control. >> is

[14:36] a nonprofit. Bossy >> is a

[14:38] nonprofit organization rooted

[14:40] in the belief that the women's

[14:41] sports community holds the

[14:43] power to engage, inspire and

[14:45] empower girls to stay active

[14:48] regardless of ability or

[14:49] socioeconomic >> status. As

[14:52] someone who has been proud to

[14:53] support bossy, I have seen

[14:56] firsthand why this organization

[14:58] is so important to our

[14:59] community. Throughout >> the

[15:01] last 21 years bossy has

[15:03] supported over 29,000 children

[15:06] and youth through participation

[15:08] in their free programs.

[15:10] empowered 80 plus coaches and

[15:13] inspired >> more than 9800

[15:15] volunteers. And let's be honest

[15:19] girls belong on the court, on

[15:21] the field, at the rink and in

[15:23] the stands cheering each other

[15:25] on. We're also living >>

[15:27] through such an exciting time

[15:28] for women's sports here in

[15:30] san jose and across the bay

[15:31] area particularly with the

[15:33] addition of the national >>

[15:35] women's hockey league team

[15:36] coming to san jose soon. We're

[15:39] seeing more professional

[15:40] women's sports teams, more

[15:41] attention to women athletes and

[15:43] more young girls getting >> the

[15:45] chance to see women succeeding

[15:47] at the highest levels. And I

[15:48] think one of the most powerful

[15:50] things we can give a young girl

[15:52] is the ability to look at an

[15:53] athlete and say >> I want to be

[15:56] her or even better I can be

[15:59] her. But that starts way before

[16:02] the professional level. It

[16:03] starts when a girl gets her

[16:05] first pair of cleats steps onto

[16:07] a field, joins a team and

[16:09] realizes she belongs there.

[16:12] that's where >> the bay area

[16:14] women's sports initiative comes

[16:15] in. Girls often have less

[16:18] opportunities to play

[16:20] sports than boys. And this

[16:21] disparity is even greater for

[16:23] girls of color. Girls who play

[16:26] sports have better physical and

[16:27] mental health outcomes and

[16:29] graduate high school and

[16:30] college at higher rates. Bossy

[16:33] is creating those opportunities

[16:35] for girls right here in our

[16:36] community. Bosses first

[16:38] initiative aims to harness the

[16:41] power of women athletes by

[16:42] providing opportunity to serve

[16:45] young girls who weren't being

[16:46] exposed to organized sports or

[16:49] physical education classes and

[16:51] to reach girls in communities

[16:53] >> where obesity and diabetes

[16:55] were prevalent. As someone who

[16:58] cares deeply about san jose and

[17:00] the young people who call our

[17:02] city home, I really value >>

[17:04] organizations that are

[17:05] investing in our kids and

[17:07] giving them opportunities to

[17:09] thrive. Because when we invest

[17:12] in girls in sports we aren't

[17:14] just creating better athletes.

[17:16] we're creating future leaders,

[17:18] coaches and community members.

[17:21] congratulations to >> bossie

[17:23] your coaches, volunteers,

[17:25] parents and the incredible

[17:27] young women and girls you

[17:28] serve. Thank you for reminding

[17:31] our girls that they are capable

[17:33] and reserve >> every chance to

[17:35] play, compete, lead and

[17:38] succeed. To >> accept today's

[17:41] commendation, I'd like to

[17:42] welcome dana weintraub, ceo

[17:44] of bossy. Okay. First of all, I

[17:53] would just like to recognize

[17:55] those young people who just

[17:56] performed and shared their

[17:58] incredible skill of tai chi

[18:01] taekwondo with us. Wow, that

[18:03] was impressive. Good >>

[18:06] afternoon, vice mayor foley.

[18:09] mayor mehan and all the members

[18:11] of the city council, city

[18:12] leaders, partners and friends

[18:15] today >> I also have with

[18:16] me two bossy alumni coaches who

[18:18] are now on staff with us also

[18:20] two former collegiate and

[18:22] professional athletes annette

[18:23] greenlee and lindsey van allen.

[18:25] so, so glad they could be here

[18:26] with us. The >> rest of our

[18:28] team is getting ready to get

[18:29] back on playgrounds for back to

[18:31] school. On behalf of all of us,

[18:33] thank you for this incredibly

[18:35] meaningful recognition of our

[18:37] 20th plus one anniversary bossi

[18:40] story is in so many ways a

[18:43] san jose's story. We were

[18:45] founded in 2005 at a time when

[18:48] investment in women's

[18:50] sports and access for sport for

[18:52] girls was far from guaranteed.

[18:54] the first women's professional

[18:56] soccer league had recently

[18:57] folded including our very own

[18:59] san jose cyber is the league's

[19:01] very first champions. Marlene

[19:03] barnes read the former manager

[19:05] of the cyber res along with

[19:07] soccer legend legends san jose

[19:09] native and santa clara bronco

[19:11] brandi chastain and stanford

[19:13] cardinal julie foudy wanted to

[19:16] preserve something powerful

[19:17] that had grown out of that team

[19:19] the connection between women

[19:21] athletes and community in truth

[19:23] silicon valley fashion bossi

[19:25] began in marlene's garage and

[19:27] our first official office soon

[19:29] followed right here at city

[19:31] hall at the invitation of then

[19:32] mayor ron gonzalez. So it feels

[19:35] especially fitting to be back

[19:37] here at city hall 20 plus years

[19:39] later since our founding as you

[19:41] just heard from vice mayor

[19:44] foley, bossi has enrolled over

[19:45] 29,000 children and youth

[19:47] engaged over 9500 volunteers

[19:50] and 80 athlete leadership team

[19:52] coaches, two of whom are with

[19:53] me today. We've built deep

[19:55] partnerships with schools and

[19:56] communities >> throughout

[19:57] san jose and the bay area. But

[19:59] the numbers only tell part

[20:01] of our story. The real story is

[20:03] the thousands of girls from

[20:05] under-resourced neighborhoods

[20:06] and children with disabilities

[20:07] who have stepped onto a busy

[20:09] playground and found that they

[20:11] belong. The young girl >> who

[20:12] finds confidence and begins to

[20:14] see yourself as a leader the

[20:16] bossy alumni who come back

[20:17] years later >> and are leaders

[20:19] in their community >> as bossy

[20:21] coaches, volunteers, staff and

[20:24] board members as well as chief

[20:27] of staff to city council member

[20:28] peter ortiz. Like our boss the

[20:30] alumni brisa rojas marino all

[20:32] creating the same opportunity

[20:34] for the next generation. 20

[20:36] years ago >> bossy was

[20:38] created in the wake of the loss

[20:40] of a professional women's

[20:41] sports team. Today san jose and

[20:43] the bay area area are

[20:45] experienced an extraordinary

[20:46] new era in women's sports. And

[20:48] the deep community connections

[20:50] which follow just yesterday the

[20:52] entire bfc team came out to

[20:55] hubbard media arts academy

[20:56] playground >> and >> reminded

[21:00] us what's possible when

[21:02] communities invest in the long,

[21:05] long game. We are deeply >>

[21:07] grateful to the city of san

[21:08] jose for being part of bossi

[21:10] story from the very beginning

[21:11] and continuing to believe in

[21:13] the power of sport to

[21:14] strengthen our community. Thank

[21:16] >> you vice mayor foley, mayor

[21:17] mehan and the entire city

[21:19] council for this commendation

[21:21] and for ensuring that the next

[21:23] generation of san jose youth

[21:25] has the opportunity to play, to

[21:27] lead and to succeed. We are

[21:29] incredibly proud of what we've

[21:30] built together over these first

[21:32] 20 years and even more excited

[21:35] about what's ahead. Thank you.

[21:41] and we have a little something

[21:42] to except when I first >>

[21:45] actually gave you this. Thank

[21:46] you very much. Thank you. And

[21:48] our community. Thank you.

[21:49] appreciate it. Let's get a

[21:50] photo and we have a little

[21:51] something for you to wear in

[21:52] the photo. Okay, great. Send

[21:57] middle

[22:11] thank. It's great. Thank you.

[22:13] thank you so much and hopefully

[22:16] see you at the bfc. All right.

[22:29] thank you vice mayor and boss.

[22:31] we really appreciate the

[22:32] incredible work you do on our

[22:33] community will now move on to

[22:35] councilmember mulcahy and

[22:36] councilor dumont if you would

[22:38] join me here at the podium we

[22:40] will recognize valley services

[22:42] >>

[22:53] . It's always good afternoon

[23:00] everyone. I first of all I want

[23:02] to say thanks to

[23:04] councilmember mulcahy for

[23:06] allowing me to present this

[23:07] commendation alongside with

[23:09] him. It is my honor to

[23:11] recognize valley >> services

[23:15] for nearly 40 years of service

[23:18] to the residents of san jose.

[23:21] founded by mike and monica

[23:23] salinas valley service began >>

[23:26] in 1986 as a small scrap metal

[23:30] businesses and has grown into

[23:33] full service sanitation company

[23:36] serving projects and events

[23:38] throughout our community.

[23:41] valley services has also been

[23:44] >> a dedicated community

[23:46] partners supporting local

[23:48] organization and events

[23:51] including working with the

[23:53] san jose foos to provide

[23:55] restroom facility >> for major

[23:58] community gathering. I

[24:00] especially want to recognize

[24:02] their commitment to second

[24:04] chance employment by creating

[24:07] opportunities for individual

[24:09] who are incarcerated or return

[24:12] from rehabilitation. Valet

[24:14] service has helped people

[24:17] rebuild their lives, support >>

[24:19] their families and reach

[24:21] important milestones. For four

[24:24] decades valley's >> service

[24:26] have shown that a successful

[24:28] local business can also be a

[24:30] force for positive change.

[24:33] while staying true to >> it,

[24:35] family and community values >>

[24:38] on behalf of the city of san

[24:40] jose, thank you for your

[24:42] continuous service and

[24:44] commitment to our community.

[24:47] and I believe >> would like to

[24:50] say a few words. >> good

[24:54] afternoon mayor. Council

[24:56] members and everyone here

[24:57] today. On behalf of my family

[25:00] and everyone at valley services

[25:01] thank you for this recognition.

[25:03] it's especially meaningful to

[25:04] receive it here in san jose

[25:07] down the road from spartan

[25:08] stadium. There's a stretch

[25:10] of railroad tracks on south

[25:11] seventh street. My dad played

[25:13] along those tracks as a kid

[25:14] growing up in san jose. With

[25:16] humble beginnings and often

[25:18] finding refuge there when

[25:19] things got >> rough at home.

[25:21] decades later my parents would

[25:22] build valley's newest facility

[25:24] along those very same tracks. A

[25:26] full circle moment. I don't

[25:28] think either of them could have

[25:29] imagined at the time my parents

[25:32] mike and monica met in san jose

[25:34] when they were 16 and went on

[25:37] to start the business in 1986.

[25:39] at just 25 years old with one

[25:41] truck hauling scrap metal and

[25:43] junk cars around >> the bay

[25:44] area 40 years later valley is

[25:47] still proudly rooted right here

[25:49] in san jose. Today we employ

[25:51] nearly 100 people operate a c

[25:54] and disposal facility and

[25:55] provide site services for some

[25:57] of the bay area's largest

[25:58] events including the two

[26:00] concerts that were held right

[26:02] outside these doors. My three

[26:05] sisters and I grew up in the

[26:06] yard with our parents.

[26:08] eventually a few of us along

[26:09] with our husbands found our own

[26:11] places within the business. >>

[26:13] and now my two sons I see >>

[26:15] here are growing up there too.

[26:17] but when >> I think about what

[26:18] has allowed valley to be here

[26:20] for 40 years, the story isn't

[26:22] really about >> our family.

[26:24] it's >> about the people who

[26:25] built this company alongside us

[26:27] . From the beginning my parents

[26:29] believed in giving people an

[26:31] opportunity to work including

[26:32] those looking for a second

[26:33] chance or simply needing

[26:35] someone to take a chance on

[26:36] them. We watched people turn

[26:38] those opportunities into

[26:39] careers, become leaders within

[26:41] our company, support their

[26:43] families, buy their first

[26:45] homes, start businesses

[26:46] of their own. And even retire

[26:48] after decades with valley. For

[26:50] some those milestones may have

[26:52] once felt out of reach. That's

[26:54] what our purpose >> empowering

[26:55] lives enhancing communities

[26:56] means to us and creating

[26:58] opportunities for people and

[26:59] being there for the community

[27:01] that has been there for us. >>

[27:03] so while our family is

[27:04] incredibly proud to accept this

[27:05] commendation, we accept it on

[27:07] behalf of our employees past

[27:08] and present. They are the

[27:10] people who made valley what it

[27:11] is. 40 years ago my dad was the

[27:14] kid who found refuge along

[27:15] those tracks on south seventh

[27:17] street. Today my children are

[27:19] growing up on that same ground.

[27:21] san jose is where my parents

[27:22] story began where valley's

[27:24] story began and where we hope

[27:25] the next generation will

[27:26] continue it. Thank you to

[27:28] councilmembers mulcahy, dewan,

[27:30] mayor mason and the city

[27:32] council for this recognition.

[27:33] we're incredibly grateful to

[27:35] call san jose home. Thank you

[27:36] >>

[27:47] . Just so we can get away

[28:14] . Bye bye. All right. We're on

[28:22] to our third and final

[28:23] ceremonial item for today.

[28:25] kills for our compost. If you

[28:26] would join me at the podium. We

[28:28] will recognize as jaycee's

[28:30] air traffic controllers. >>

[28:38] thank you, mayor, and good

[28:40] afternoon everyone. Whenever we

[28:43] are flying >> in or out of san

[28:45] jose, do you ever think about

[28:47] the many people who make our

[28:49] journey possible? Today we

[28:51] celebrate >> and recognize the

[28:53] work of air traffic

[28:54] controllers. These are the men

[28:57] and women who keep airplanes

[28:59] at safe distances >> from each

[29:00] other and prevent them from

[29:02] colliding. Thanks to our

[29:04] air traffic controllers nearly

[29:06] 12 million annual passengers

[29:08] travel safely through san jose

[29:10] mineta airport. Being an air >>

[29:13] traffic controller requires

[29:14] exceptional levels

[29:16] of concentration and

[29:18] communication to ensure

[29:19] aircrafts can take off and land

[29:21] safely and in spite

[29:24] of adversary and I'm sorry

[29:25] adverse adversity like staff

[29:27] shortages or government

[29:29] shutdowns. Our air traffic

[29:30] controllers show up sometimes

[29:33] going weeks without pay. And

[29:35] during the most recent

[29:36] government shutdown several

[29:38] local organizations stepped up

[29:40] and provided different levels

[29:42] of assistance to this group

[29:44] of federal workers for which I

[29:45] am deeply, deeply grateful to

[29:47] all of the neighbors who showed

[29:49] up for our community and

[29:50] supported our air traffic

[29:52] controllers here in san jose.

[29:54] we often don't get to see,

[29:56] interact or think the people

[29:57] who make our air travel

[29:59] possible. And it's my hope that

[30:01] >> with this commendation we

[30:03] are demonstrating a small token

[30:06] of our appreciation for the

[30:07] hard work and at times

[30:09] sacrifice that our air traffic

[30:11] controllers make to ensure that

[30:12] we get to our destinations

[30:13] safely. So today we are joined

[30:15] by alex coronado and colby

[30:18] saunders of san jose mineta

[30:20] airport. And now I'd like to

[30:22] invite victor ramirez to share

[30:24] a few words and accept this

[30:25] commendation on behalf of the

[30:27] air traffic controllers here

[30:28] at san jose. Thank you so >>

[30:35] much. I didn't have a speech

[30:36] friday. I came straight from

[30:37] work today but I truly

[30:38] appreciate it. We are the ones

[30:40] behind the scenes. When you

[30:41] talk about aviation, when

[30:43] you're taking a flight you

[30:44] always think about the pilot

[30:44] because you see the pilot. He's

[30:46] the one that greets you the

[30:46] ticket agent. They're the ones

[30:47] to collect your tickets. But

[30:49] you forget about the behind the

[30:50] scenes. So I truly appreciate

[30:51] it. And all the air traffic

[30:52] controllers are grateful for

[30:53] this opportunity to kind of be

[30:55] in the limelight. I know

[30:56] sometimes tragic accidents do

[30:58] bring us to the limelight and

[31:00] that's one of the things that

[31:02] did bring us the limelight with

[31:03] the accident. But even during

[31:05] this shutdown we truly

[31:06] appreciate all the

[31:07] organizations, agencies,

[31:08] companies that came out support

[31:10] it whether it was lunch,

[31:12] coffee. So we do appreciate

[31:14] that because yeah, being on the

[31:15] shutdown for 40 days plus

[31:17] without pay, it made a lot

[31:19] of impact on our families and

[31:20] our daily lives. So we are so

[31:22] grateful and remember next time

[31:24] you guys are flying or going to

[31:25] your destination, there's

[31:27] people behind the scenes that

[31:28] do a lot of this work and try

[31:29] and make sure that we get you

[31:31] guys there safely, smoothly.

[31:32] hopefully don't blame us for

[31:34] being delayed. It's not us.

[31:36] most of the time it's whether

[31:37] but the pilots will blame the

[31:39] air traffic controllers. But

[31:40] thank you again >>

[31:53] for

[32:45] all right. Thank you all very

[32:46] much. We are on to orders

[32:49] of the day. Do any colleagues

[32:51] have suggested changes to

[32:53] today's printed agenda? For

[32:55] casey. >> yes. I'd like to pull

[32:58] item 10.1 please. Okay. That's

[33:01] off land use concern. Okay.

[33:02] well, when we get to ladies

[33:04] consent, we will do that. You

[33:06] know, appreciate the heads up.

[33:08] any other changes to the

[33:09] printed agenda? Not seeing any.

[33:11] we do have an adjournment today

[33:14] . >> today will be adjourning

[33:20] today's meeting in honor

[33:22] of father peter pabst sj. Today

[33:26] I want to take a moment to

[33:27] remember and honor the life

[33:29] of father peter pabst who

[33:31] passed away in may. A man whose

[33:33] faith, compassion, humor and

[33:37] unwavering belief in young

[33:38] people touched countless

[33:40] countless lives here in

[33:41] san jose. Father peter gerard

[33:43] pabst was born in saint paul,

[33:45] minnesota in 1954 and his

[33:49] impact here in san jose began

[33:51] in 1986. After being ordained a

[33:54] priest in san francisco. Part

[33:57] of his ministry included

[33:58] serving at bellarmine and as a

[34:01] resident minister at santa

[34:03] clara university. Experiences

[34:05] that helped him find his gift

[34:07] for connecting with young

[34:08] people, helping them see

[34:09] possibilities for their lives

[34:11] that they couldn't yet see for

[34:13] themselves. That gift was

[34:15] at the heart of his most

[34:17] important life life's work. In

[34:20] 2000 father pabst founded the

[34:23] sacred heart nativity school's

[34:25] opening new doors for students

[34:27] from low income families. Then

[34:30] in 2013 he took on another

[34:33] ambitious mission as the

[34:35] founding present of crystal

[34:36] rey, san jose's jesuit high

[34:38] school. Father pabst believed

[34:41] deeply that a family's income

[34:43] should never determine whether

[34:44] a young person has access to an

[34:46] excellent education or the

[34:49] opportunity to build a bright

[34:50] future. Under his leadership as

[34:53] founding present and later as

[34:54] chancellor crystal rose,

[34:56] san jose has helped hundreds

[34:58] of students become the first in

[35:00] their families to attend

[35:01] college. That is an

[35:03] extraordinarily legacy. But

[35:05] anyone who knew father pabst

[35:07] knows that his impact can't be

[35:09] measured just by the

[35:11] institutions he built or the

[35:12] number of students who he

[35:14] helped get on the path to

[35:15] college. Service was deeply

[35:18] personal to him. He found

[35:20] tremendous joy in people. He

[35:23] was proud of his students and

[35:25] alumni and those who supported

[35:27] them and he stayed connected

[35:29] with former students long after

[35:31] they graduated, sometimes even

[35:32] officiating their weddings. His

[35:35] warmth, infectious energy and

[35:37] sense of humor made people feel

[35:40] welcome while his faith

[35:41] inspired them to believe in

[35:43] themselves and what was

[35:44] possible for their lives. Today

[35:47] we honor father pabst not only

[35:50] for his service and what he

[35:52] built but for how he made

[35:54] people feel seen, supported,

[35:58] encouraged and loved. On behalf

[36:01] of the city of san jose, I want

[36:03] to extend our deepest

[36:04] condolences to father papp's

[36:06] family to the many students,

[36:08] colleagues, friends and loved

[36:10] ones whose lives he profoundly

[36:12] touched. And now I'd like to

[36:16] invite carla quinto, a crystal

[36:19] alum, to share a few words

[36:20] about father pabst. >> welcome.

[36:25] thank you. I recently had a

[36:28] question posed to me and that

[36:30] is who have you met >> that

[36:32] changed the course of your

[36:33] life? For me it was a man who

[36:35] had a vision of providing

[36:36] resources, access and

[36:38] opportunity to kids in

[36:40] san jose. Reverend peter patz

[36:42] believed that education was the

[36:44] great equalizer to give these

[36:46] students a chance to get out

[36:48] of poverty. In 2012, reverend

[36:50] peter pappas became the present

[36:52] of christ the san jose jesuit

[36:54] high school where he continued

[36:55] to wear many hats to support

[36:57] the school's mission to help

[36:59] students get to and through

[37:00] college and to be set on a path

[37:03] toward a sustainable,

[37:04] fulfilling future. Under his

[37:07] leadership, 100% of christa rey

[37:09] alums have been admitted to

[37:10] four year universities with

[37:12] most the first in their

[37:14] families to pursue higher

[37:15] education. They start their

[37:17] college career with

[37:18] professional experience gained

[37:20] through a corporate work study

[37:21] program that partners with

[37:23] companies across multiple

[37:24] industries in silicon valley

[37:26] including nonprofit kids, tech

[37:28] giants, health care and

[37:30] educational institutions where

[37:32] students work for one day a

[37:33] week obtaining valuable

[37:35] communication organization and

[37:37] interpersonal skills needed in

[37:39] the workplace. I had the

[37:41] opportunity to graduate from

[37:43] chris array's inaugural class

[37:44] in 2018 where I graduated with

[37:47] over 1000 hours of work

[37:49] experience as an internet cisco

[37:51] systems and acceptance and

[37:53] scholarship to santa clara

[37:54] university. I've since grown in

[37:57] my career at stanford

[37:58] university for the past four

[38:00] and a half years where I am a

[38:02] talent development coordinator

[38:03] helping our staff grow

[38:04] professional li and obtain

[38:06] skills meaningful to their

[38:07] careers. >> and in 2024 I

[38:10] started my own small business

[38:11] providing career coaching for

[38:12] early in career first

[38:14] generation professionals where

[38:16] I have been able to help over

[38:17] 100 people understand and

[38:19] navigate the job search process

[38:21] . But I'm not the only one who

[38:23] has been able to reap the

[38:25] benefits of getting access to

[38:27] the resources christopher array

[38:28] provided for its students as

[38:30] over 150 alumni have been hired

[38:33] by christopher wray work city

[38:34] partners for internships and

[38:36] professional work. With

[38:38] christopher, his fifth

[38:39] graduating >> class earning

[38:40] degrees from four year colleges

[38:42] this year, alumni are entering

[38:44] the workforce not only with a

[38:46] degree but extensive work

[38:48] experience and a professional

[38:49] network of mentors and

[38:51] champions. None of this would

[38:53] have been possible without

[38:55] reverends peter papp's vision

[38:57] to create opportunities for

[38:59] students in east san jose. His

[39:01] passion to serve

[39:02] under-resourced families should

[39:03] be recognized and and

[39:05] remembered for its

[39:06] extraordinary >> impact on the

[39:08] community. I'm proud to be an

[39:10] alumna from christa ray and I'm

[39:12] thankful for reverend papp's

[39:13] contributions to make dreams

[39:15] possible for many students and

[39:17] families in san jose. Thank

[39:19] you. Thank >> you. We really

[39:28] appreciate you being here to

[39:29] share how father pabst impacted

[39:31] your life and that of hundreds

[39:32] of other students I know we're

[39:34] also joined by leaders jesuit

[39:36] school leaders, educators,

[39:38] staff >> from santa clara

[39:40] university, christopher wray,

[39:41] jesuit high school and sacred

[39:43] heart nativity schools. I just

[39:44] want to thank you all for being

[39:46] here. If you'd like to stand

[39:47] up, we'll just thank you for

[39:48] your service in our community.

[39:50] I know peter papp's had a big

[39:51] impact on your lives. You don't

[39:53] have to stand up but thank you

[39:54] all for being >> here and thank

[40:03] you again for being here to

[40:04] help honor a great man who had

[40:05] an incredible impact on our

[40:07] community. We're going to move

[40:08] on now to our >> close session

[40:11] report. >> thank you, mayor.

[40:14] nothing to report from closed

[40:16] session today. Okay. Thank >>

[40:18] you. So we I know we have a

[40:20] number of folks here who want

[40:21] to comment on an item coming up

[40:22] a little later. I do since we

[40:24] have folks who may not have

[40:24] been here in the past, I just

[40:26] want to note that if you would

[40:28] like to speak it would we would

[40:31] appreciate if you would fill

[40:32] out a comment >> card. Our

[40:34] clerk will call out your names.

[40:36] the comment cards are down here

[40:39] at the bottom of the

[40:41] ampitheater seating and there's

[40:43] and also up at the top. So if

[40:44] you would fill out a card and

[40:45] make clear which item on the

[40:47] agenda you want to speak on

[40:48] that will help us be more

[40:49] efficient. Thank you all. Next

[40:51] is the consent calendar. Are

[40:54] there any items council members

[40:55] would like to pull from consent

[40:58] ? Not seen >> any. Do we have a

[41:02] motion so I can. Great. Thank

[41:05] you toni. Do we have public >>

[41:07] comment on the consent

[41:09] calendar? Yes >> I do. I have

[41:11] currently three cards in person

[41:12] and five hands online before I

[41:15] call names as a reminder,

[41:16] speakers must comply with the

[41:17] city's code of conduct for

[41:18] public meetings. Please direct

[41:20] comments to the body limit

[41:21] remarks to the agenda item. In

[41:23] this case it's the consent

[41:24] calendar as a whole even if you

[41:27] submitted more than one card

[41:29] for an item you will speak one

[41:31] minute on all of the items.

[41:34] conduct that materially

[41:35] disrupts the meeting or

[41:36] interferes with others ability

[41:37] to participate may result in

[41:38] muting or removal as authorized

[41:40] by law. If you are

[41:41] participating by telephone you

[41:42] press star nine to raise your

[41:43] hand and I actually see the

[41:45] three cards I have in person

[41:46] are for the same person. So

[41:48] america please come on down.

[41:50] you have one minute to speak on

[41:51] all three items and then online

[41:53] I'll move to dave followed by

[41:55] blair >>

[42:12] and that's all I need to get

[42:19] and I know I want to get

[42:23] everybody am I'm sorry if you

[42:25] want to speak on this item you

[42:27] can come down. You will have

[42:28] one minute. The agenda is

[42:29] posted online as always >> I

[42:33] understand you have one minute

[42:34] on this item. This is the

[42:35] consent calendar. >> okay. I'm

[42:37] going to go ahead and move up

[42:38] to the online. Go >> to online

[42:40] first. Go ahead, dave followed

[42:44] by blair. Go ahead, dave

[42:50] followed by blair dave,

[42:52] go ahead, kay. I'm going >> to

[42:58] move on to blair followed by

[42:59] connie. >> hi blair beekman boy

[43:05] it's nice to appear on zoom

[43:06] again here in san jose. I'm

[43:08] living in san diego for the

[43:09] past four years. Thank you for

[43:11] working with the state

[43:12] of california to allow zoom

[43:13] again and hopefully we can have

[43:17] a hopeful good public decorum

[43:19] and public process with the

[43:20] future of zoom. It's a real

[43:22] good democratic community too.

[43:24] thank you. >> I wanted to

[43:26] comment on the northern

[43:28] california regional

[43:29] intelligence center that you

[43:30] are going to be approving

[43:31] today. I hope there can be a

[43:33] comment from your someone from

[43:36] council what exactly we are

[43:38] doing with the future of nick

[43:39] rick things they've just been

[43:41] caught with san francisco you

[43:43] know giving federal agencies

[43:46] carte blanche to data

[43:48] collection practices and

[43:51] they've been spying on people

[43:52] and spying on our immigrant

[43:55] communities in really large

[43:57] numbers. What is southeast

[43:58] response to that? How are you

[44:00] going to work on that? And I'll

[44:02] talk more about this item at a

[44:05] connie followed by america in

[44:08] person. Hello, my name is

[44:13] connie. Good morning mayor and

[44:14] council members I am speaking

[44:16] on consent item ten dot 1ai am

[44:20] county I'm sorry we're not on

[44:22] the the land use consent right

[44:24] now so those people who are

[44:26] online if you're here to speak

[44:27] about 10.1 a we're going to get

[44:31] to that next so I would thank

[44:34] you. Okay. I'm going to

[44:37] go ahead and go to america here

[44:38] in person. I'm >> speaking to

[44:47] three items today regarding

[44:49] northern california regional

[44:50] intelligence center. It has

[44:52] something to do with your >>

[44:55] citizens quality of life.

[44:57] therefore it is illegal to put

[44:59] this under a consent agenda.

[45:01] your staff is trying to do it

[45:04] under the radar pass so nobody

[45:06] knows what you guys are trying

[45:07] to do with the intelligence

[45:08] center that needs to be put to

[45:10] be discussed. I wish to pour

[45:12] that I also wish to poor

[45:14] resilience facility coalition

[45:16] adoption for the four climate

[45:18] bond readiness that concerns

[45:20] your citizens property taxes >>

[45:23] you're trying to make a pay

[45:24] more taxes again and she is

[45:26] again trying to pass this under

[45:27] the radar. I wish to pull that

[45:29] for your citizens to discuss in

[45:31] open public discussion. I also

[45:33] wish to pull your heritage tree

[45:36] list to be discussed because

[45:38] heritage tree list has >>

[45:41] sentimental feelings and values

[45:43] to your citizens who are

[45:45] founding citizens. So just >>

[45:48] okay that's your time bryan >>

[45:51] online followed by not fine in

[45:53] person I think the applause may

[46:01] have drowned out that I called

[46:02] a person. Can you hear me okay?

[46:04] yeah. Hold on, bryan. After

[46:07] after bryan is not fine. Come

[46:10] on down. Go ahead, bryan. >>

[46:12] thank you, ma'am. I would I

[46:14] sent a letter about the tree

[46:15] thing and I know we're going to

[46:18] be sticking to one minute. I

[46:20] would like to remind everybody

[46:21] that mr. Bateman has been

[46:23] bringing up the security issues

[46:24] and data being shared for many,

[46:27] many, many, many, many, many,

[46:28] many, many, many years and for

[46:30] many, many, many, many years

[46:32] mr. Beekman has been ignored

[46:33] and he has been correct pretty

[46:36] much about all of it. And so

[46:38] now people are councils are

[46:39] having to go back and finish. I

[46:41] would just humbly suggest that

[46:43] maybe people listen to us just

[46:46] once in a while. That's not a

[46:48] rude I'm sorry that make it

[46:50] clearer that you're hearing it.

[46:51] thank you. >> thank you. Not

[46:52] fine. Did you come down? It's

[46:56] anonymous. It just is not fine

[46:58] for the name. Okay. I'm going

[47:01] to move on to alec again. This

[47:04] is for regular consent, not

[47:06] 10.1 alec online. No, sorry. I

[47:12] think I'm in for the other one

[47:13] that you can pass. Okay. For

[47:14] now >> and then amy, that are

[47:27] you also 10.1. Hi, can you hear

[47:29] me now I'm talking about >>

[47:33] public safety and the data

[47:34] centers. Okay, go ahead. >>

[47:40] my name is amy. I grew up in

[47:42] santa clara county and I'm a

[47:44] survivor of a live torture

[47:45] basement. I was placed in

[47:47] special victims unit and I've

[47:49] been in relocation programs for

[47:51] 25 years. I've been trying to

[47:53] join in reports of child

[47:56] trafficking and at the san jose

[47:58] pd lobby who have been blocking

[48:01] me time and time and time again

[48:04] internal affairs picked up

[48:05] my case and then they did an

[48:07] investigation. They found out

[48:08] the police officers were found

[48:10] guilty >> and disciplined. And

[48:14] to this day I still haven't

[48:15] been able to enter in my in

[48:17] my evidence and withholding

[48:20] evidence from the multistate

[48:21] investigation naming my abuser

[48:24] as I suspect is called

[48:27] obstruction of justice and I'm

[48:30] receiving violent retaliation.

[48:32] >> okay. Thank you. And the

[48:35] in-person speaker didn't come

[48:36] down so I'm going to go back to

[48:37] counsel. That's all. Okay,

[48:40] great. I just want to note for

[48:42] the record since we have a

[48:43] number of people here and I

[48:44] heard some applause that item

[48:46] two nine which is on consent is

[48:48] a very simple and very small

[48:50] reimbursement from the county

[48:51] of san mateo to our police

[48:52] department for services we

[48:54] rendered it related to

[48:55] intelligence around human

[48:56] trafficking and terrorism. It's

[48:58] a pretty routine item probably

[48:59] doesn't need a lot

[48:59] of discussion or debate and the

[49:02] other is the ability for the

[49:03] city to apply for grant funding

[49:05] for some resilience work that

[49:07] we'd be doing. Also a very

[49:08] modest amount of money. So

[49:10] that's why we have a consent

[49:11] calendar is to be efficient and

[49:13] allow time for the public to

[49:14] comment and for us to discuss

[49:16] and debate the big policy

[49:17] questions that this council

[49:19] needs to weigh in on. So don't

[49:21] want anyone to think we're

[49:21] hiding the ball here. So on the

[49:23] consent calendar and the items

[49:25] that have been posted since

[49:27] last week we had a motion to

[49:29] have any further discussion,

[49:31] not seen any. So toni, let's

[49:32] vote on the consent calendar

[49:34] please

[49:50] . >> motion passes unanimously

[49:54] . Okay. Thank >> you. So we're

[49:56] on to the land use consent

[49:59] calendar and councilor akc I

[50:01] think requested to poll and

[50:03] comment on item 10.1 a is that

[50:06] >> correct? Hillsborough a case

[50:07] to the floor is yours. Thank >>

[50:08] you, mayor. Just a couple

[50:11] of questions for staff if

[50:13] they're available I'll start

[50:19] while you guys are coming down.

[50:20] so the current pd there's some

[50:21] question as to whether or not

[50:23] it designates the permanent

[50:24] open space for the 565 acres

[50:27] and how this conforming

[50:29] rezoning would impact that.

[50:39] thank you. Councilmember chris

[50:40] burton, director of planning

[50:40] building code enforcement. We

[50:42] brought a whole cast

[50:42] of characters to answer your

[50:43] questions. So currently there's

[50:46] a pd zoning in place. It's an

[50:47] older zoning that allowed for

[50:50] the specific prior use which

[50:51] was the I-beam almaden research

[50:53] facility on a portion of this

[50:55] site and then the balance

[50:58] of that pd zoning preserved

[51:00] open space you know in the 500

[51:02] plus acres surrounding it.

[51:04] since then obviously we've

[51:05] updated the general plan the

[51:07] underlying general plan

[51:08] designations to be consistent

[51:10] with that under the research

[51:12] facility we included the ip,

[51:15] the industrial park designation

[51:17] and so this rezoning would

[51:19] preserve both the open spaces,

[51:21] open space and then the

[51:23] research park as ip or

[51:25] industrial park moving forward.

[51:27] so we believe it's it's

[51:28] consistent with the general

[51:30] plan approvals that have

[51:31] already taken place and

[51:32] consistent with the types

[51:33] of uses that we've seen

[51:34] historically on this side. >>

[51:36] okay. So to be clear, the open

[51:38] space, the 565 acres will

[51:41] remain permanent open space

[51:42] with this. Okay. And then the

[51:46] second is as it relates to the

[51:47] potential for the industrial

[51:49] portion of the 35 acres or so

[51:51] to be at some point a data

[51:54] center and how this conforming

[51:56] rezoning would impact that. >>

[52:00] so the conforming rezoning

[52:02] would allow uses consistent

[52:04] with the industrial park

[52:05] designation which include data

[52:07] center with the issuance of a

[52:08] special use permit. So that's a

[52:09] discretionary permit that

[52:11] requires full clearance and

[52:13] would go to a director's

[52:14] hearing with public outreach

[52:16] and the opportunity for the

[52:18] public to comment. It's then

[52:20] appealable to the planning

[52:21] commission from that point so

[52:23] >> to be clear they would still

[52:25] have to apply they would still

[52:27] go through a process that would

[52:28] include public input and this

[52:30] does not rubber stamp that a

[52:33] data center being built there.

[52:35] that's correct. There is some

[52:37] conversations about having

[52:39] citywide guidelines as they

[52:41] apply to data centers. Would

[52:44] this in any way prevent this

[52:45] project's the potential data

[52:47] center from conforming to those

[52:49] guidelines or being involved?

[52:51] it would not know so I would

[52:53] check with staff but I believe

[52:55] we have received an application

[52:56] at this point and we don't

[52:58] receive so we haven't received

[53:00] an application at this point.

[53:01] we have received I think a

[53:02] prelim and had discussions with

[53:04] applicants considering the use

[53:06] you know typically a special

[53:08] use permit could range anywhere

[53:10] from you know, 6 to 9 months

[53:12] for a typical process to the

[53:13] extent that it involves an

[53:15] environmental impact report

[53:16] which again a lot of the data

[53:18] centers that we're processing

[53:19] require a full environmental

[53:21] impact report and it would

[53:23] likely take considerably

[53:24] longer. And so the approval for

[53:26] that special use permit would

[53:27] likely come after the adoption

[53:29] of the city wide standards on

[53:30] data centers. Great. Thank you.

[53:32] that's it for me, mayor. Thank

[53:33] you. Thanks, councilmember.

[53:35] appreciate it. Let me turn to

[53:36] council for a comment. Thank

[53:42] you. On the same item I'm just

[53:45] wondering if there are

[53:46] objective planning standards

[53:48] and why is this coming to us

[53:50] now? >> good afternoon munir

[53:56] cynthia, deputy director

[53:57] of planning. So the conforming

[53:59] rezoning is an obligation and

[54:01] therefore it's being brought to

[54:03] council. We do have design

[54:06] standards for projects that

[54:08] would come in the future at the

[54:09] site but the rezoning only

[54:11] allows for consistency between

[54:13] the existing zoning on site and

[54:15] the general plan designation so

[54:17] it expands the kinds of uses

[54:18] that could be allowed there

[54:19] under the industrial park

[54:21] general plan land use

[54:22] designation but without an

[54:25] application it's hard to say

[54:26] what kind of design standards

[54:28] would apply. Right. So >> I'm

[54:31] just wondering we received

[54:32] information from several groups

[54:34] that are very concerned about

[54:36] this and perhaps it's just a

[54:37] matter of understanding what

[54:39] this is and what this is not.

[54:41] and so they have asked for a

[54:43] deferral and since there's no

[54:46] urgency to this and there's no

[54:48] project to this, would a 30 day

[54:51] sort of a sort of hold be a

[54:55] problem? Oh yeah. I think it

[55:00] might be worth asking the

[55:01] applicant I think the applicant

[55:02] has put this proposal in to

[55:04] identify a clearer path of what

[55:06] kind of uses could be allowed

[55:07] on that side. So there is a

[55:08] project so there is a project

[55:11] not at the moment.

[55:14] councilmember >> if I can just

[55:15] expand on this. So obviously

[55:17] ibm have decided to dispose

[55:19] of the site. There's been a

[55:20] number of conversations that

[55:22] have been in play regarding

[55:24] this property around the future

[55:25] use. So as the need to be on

[55:27] your side so the property owner

[55:30] ibm who owns the facility is

[55:34] looking to dispose of the site

[55:35] right? So they're no longer

[55:37] continuing their operations. So

[55:38] we've had a number of different

[55:41] groups that have inquired about

[55:42] different types of uses on this

[55:45] site. So it's very typical that

[55:47] we would see on a project like

[55:48] this that the applicant would

[55:51] reason the property, you know,

[55:52] to make it consistent with the

[55:53] general plan and allow the full

[55:55] range of uses. As I said

[55:57] earlier when it was previously

[55:58] adopted it was a very narrow

[56:01] pre zoning that you know just

[56:02] included research and

[56:03] development. So they're looking

[56:05] to you know, maximize the

[56:06] opportunity through sale of the

[56:07] site so they're going to sell

[56:09] the property is that they are

[56:11] going to sell the property?

[56:11] yes, that's my understanding.

[56:13] okay. And it would it's >> more

[56:14] valuable if the zoning is

[56:15] different >> so that I mean I'm

[56:18] just wondering like what the

[56:20] urgency is to this. Right. And

[56:22] so I don't because we've been

[56:23] we've >> been asked we've been

[56:24] asked to consider deferring

[56:27] this to allow for more and you

[56:30] know more the groups who are

[56:31] concerned about it more

[56:32] information. Right. So I'm just

[56:34] I'm just sort of weighing you

[56:36] know, if there's no urgency

[56:37] there are no objective planning

[56:38] standards, you know, like

[56:40] what's the rush? >> so you

[56:43] know, from our perspective

[56:44] we're just trying to move

[56:45] applications through on a

[56:46] timely basis. I think as munir

[56:47] stated, I would encourage you

[56:49] to ask that question of the

[56:50] applicant. >> okay? And I'm

[56:53] going to give the applicant

[56:53] five minutes as soon as

[56:55] council's secondary questions.

[56:57] okay? Okay great councilmember

[57:00] we'll wait for the applicant.

[57:01] yeah. Okay. Any other

[57:03] preliminary questions? Okay. So

[57:06] as is our practice with land

[57:08] use items the applicant will

[57:09] have five minutes then we'll

[57:11] go to public comment and we'll

[57:13] come back we'll come back to

[57:14] the council. >> eric

[57:49] and

[58:03] to toni. Are we just waiting to

[58:05] get something up on the screen?

[58:06] yes. Okay. There >> we go.

[58:13] okay. You'll have five minutes.

[58:15] >> all right. Thank you, mayor

[58:16] mehan, members of the council.

[58:18] my name is eric shay. Now I

[58:19] represent the the >> ibm site

[58:23] rezoning. First of all, we want

[58:25] to thank city staff for all

[58:26] their time to get the

[58:27] application here. We have two

[58:30] parallel goals on this effort.

[58:32] one is to preserve the open

[58:34] space as it exists today. No

[58:36] changes to the open space.

[58:38] second, to allow the industrial

[58:40] site to be put back into

[58:42] economic use in an efficient

[58:45] manner >> quickly >> a vacant

[58:49] site would be susceptible >> to

[58:51] vandalism and homeless starting

[58:53] fires in the building which we

[58:55] experience all over our city on

[58:58] the screen. On the left >> is

[59:00] the existing general plan which

[59:02] is 565 acres of open space and

[59:05] 35 acres of industrial. On the

[59:07] right is our proposed zoning

[59:09] exactly the same 565 acres

[59:12] of open space and 35 acres

[59:15] of industrial park. This is

[59:17] from the staff report. >> it's

[59:21] appropriate to follow the

[59:23] adopted general plan of the

[59:25] city and the adopted zoning

[59:27] code of the city. The image on

[59:29] the screen is the san jose

[59:30] zoning code. What it says is

[59:33] when the general plan

[59:34] designation is industrial park

[59:36] which the 35 acres is then the

[59:38] zoning should be ip on the

[59:40] right side of the screen when

[59:42] the general plant is open space

[59:45] parkland and habitat then the

[59:47] zoning should be open space ohs

[59:50] zoning on the right side of the

[59:51] screen. So all this request is

[59:54] is to align the >> zoning with

[59:58] the general plan. >> why is

[1:00:02] this important? The property

[1:00:03] needs to be brought into the

[1:00:05] 21st century. This is

[1:00:06] specialized zoning for ibm was

[1:00:08] adopted back in the 80s and is

[1:00:11] very narrow >> just for

[1:00:14] research and parking. And this

[1:00:16] document looks like this image

[1:00:19] is the actual >> general

[1:00:21] development plan from the

[1:00:22] zoning as you can >> see very

[1:00:24] crude, very simple and it

[1:00:26] leaves a lot of opportunities

[1:00:27] off the table. So here are the

[1:00:30] challenges and the protections

[1:00:32] to attract investment and

[1:00:34] financing. We have to have a

[1:00:36] logical and predictable process

[1:00:38] with no risks or roadblocks.

[1:00:40] the current >> pd zoning is too

[1:00:42] limited it just says research

[1:00:44] leaving things off the table

[1:00:46] and it's uncertain about what

[1:00:48] the city would allow under

[1:00:49] research and 17 acres

[1:00:52] of parking that we probably

[1:00:53] don't need anymore sample uses

[1:00:56] in the current zoning >>

[1:00:58] code that wouldn't be allowed

[1:01:00] in >> the in the pd zoning >>

[1:01:04] laboratory processing light

[1:01:06] manufacturing and assembly

[1:01:07] general office r&d office

[1:01:09] medical office those >> are all

[1:01:12] reasonable things that could be

[1:01:13] done on this property but you

[1:01:14] can't do it under the current

[1:01:15] zoning. It's important to note

[1:01:18] that any future >> proposals

[1:01:20] that are special use or

[1:01:21] conditional use would require

[1:01:23] community engagement >> a

[1:01:25] sequel review process, city

[1:01:27] department review and public

[1:01:29] hearing any >> future sequel

[1:01:32] appeals on any of these future

[1:01:34] decisions are appealable to the

[1:01:35] city council. So in the end

[1:01:37] of the day the city council is

[1:01:38] in control and you have final

[1:01:40] say what happens on the

[1:01:41] property >> as far as zoning

[1:01:44] and general plan only the city

[1:01:46] council can ever change the

[1:01:48] zoning in the general plan. So

[1:01:49] if the zoning >> is open space

[1:01:53] it remains open space until the

[1:01:55] city council says otherwise. So

[1:01:58] today the council can >> make a

[1:02:01] clear statement by approving

[1:02:02] this zoning that you want to

[1:02:04] keep the 565 acres as open

[1:02:07] space and >> you want >> the

[1:02:10] industrial park area to be

[1:02:12] successful by allowing it to

[1:02:14] have modern zoning standards

[1:02:18] that the modern world will

[1:02:19] invest in. That's the urgency

[1:02:22] is we're trying to attract

[1:02:24] investment and financing so

[1:02:26] that this property can be

[1:02:28] repurposed since it's an old

[1:02:30] property it can take a lot

[1:02:31] of investment, a lot of work.

[1:02:33] so that's the urgency so that

[1:02:34] we can move the project and not

[1:02:36] have an empty building out in

[1:02:37] the open space that catches

[1:02:39] fire and endangers the open

[1:02:41] space and the city and the

[1:02:42] neighborhood. With that I'm

[1:02:44] available for any questions and

[1:02:46] I've been involved with this

[1:02:47] site for decades. I was council

[1:02:49] member >> dan doe's chief

[1:02:50] of staff when the housing

[1:02:52] proposal came forward in 98 and

[1:02:54] 99 and so I know all about the

[1:02:57] promise of open space and what

[1:02:59] that all means. I'm happy to

[1:03:00] give you that perspective if

[1:03:01] you'd like. Thank you. Okay.

[1:03:04] thank you. So for the applicant

[1:03:07] I suggest we go to public

[1:03:09] comment and come back for

[1:03:10] council discussion in a motion

[1:03:11] if that's if that's okay. Toni,

[1:03:13] do you have comment cards on

[1:03:14] this item? Yes, I have several.

[1:03:17] let me read as a reminder

[1:03:19] speakers must comply with the

[1:03:20] city's code of conduct for

[1:03:22] public meetings. Please direct

[1:03:23] comments to the body limit

[1:03:24] remarks to the agenda item and

[1:03:26] observe the time limit conduct

[1:03:27] that materially disrupts the

[1:03:29] meeting or interferes with

[1:03:30] others ability to participate

[1:03:31] may result in meeting or

[1:03:32] removal as authorized by law.

[1:03:35] if you're participating by

[1:03:36] telephone press star nine to

[1:03:37] raise your hand. Additionally

[1:03:39] we have about 30 speakers for

[1:03:42] this item so we're asking that

[1:03:45] instead of applause that you

[1:03:46] show your support visually such

[1:03:48] as jazz hands or thumbs up. So

[1:03:50] that the speakers further down

[1:03:51] the line don't have to wait

[1:03:52] extra time for toni. Let

[1:03:55] me emphasize that point. We

[1:03:56] have a lot of folks here today

[1:03:58] and particularly on the

[1:03:58] following item we're going to

[1:03:59] have a lot of strong emotions

[1:04:01] for and against and it's going

[1:04:02] to be a robust discussion in

[1:04:04] the interest of respecting

[1:04:06] everyone's first amendment

[1:04:07] rights, allowing us to get to

[1:04:09] that item and actually get out

[1:04:10] of here before midnight and

[1:04:11] have an efficient meeting. We

[1:04:13] always ask folks to not cheer

[1:04:16] or boo or just if you really

[1:04:18] want to show your support you

[1:04:20] can do this or whatever it is

[1:04:22] you want to do but we want to

[1:04:23] get through the meeting and not

[1:04:24] keep you here all day. But we

[1:04:25] do want to hear from you and we

[1:04:27] don't want anyone to feel

[1:04:28] pressured or intimidated. So

[1:04:29] please note sharing or booing

[1:04:31] let's let toni do her job and

[1:04:32] let's get through public

[1:04:33] comment. Go ahead, toni. Okay,

[1:04:35] I'm >> going to call about five

[1:04:36] names when you hear your name

[1:04:37] go ahead and come on down.

[1:04:38] first person to the microphone.

[1:04:39] go ahead and speak. You do not

[1:04:41] have to speak in the order that

[1:04:42] you're called. Evan brooks

[1:04:45] jessica larry ames, john come

[1:04:52] on. If your name is hurt, if

[1:04:54] you heard your name, go ahead

[1:04:55] and line up over here. First

[1:04:56] person in the microphone john

[1:04:58] leavitt and cindy h. >> evan

[1:05:04] brooks, adjoining property

[1:05:05] owner. I want to address one

[1:05:07] claim that the existing zoning

[1:05:09] and the proposed zoning protect

[1:05:10] this open space equally they do

[1:05:12] not. Under the current pd

[1:05:14] zoning ibm's own application

[1:05:16] allocates 569 acres exclusively

[1:05:19] to open space adding any other

[1:05:21] use means amending the pd a

[1:05:23] noticed hearing and a vote

[1:05:24] of this council after the

[1:05:26] rezoning the governing list

[1:05:27] becomes the zoning codes

[1:05:29] citywide use >> table for the

[1:05:31] district grading and earth

[1:05:33] removal mineral extraction and

[1:05:35] quarrying golf courses and

[1:05:37] shooting ranges are conditional

[1:05:38] uses. They're requiring only a

[1:05:40] use permit from the planning

[1:05:41] commission and it reaches you

[1:05:44] only if someone appeals and

[1:05:45] only a property owner within

[1:05:47] 1000ft can appeal. Now that's

[1:05:49] roughly 200 addresses and in

[1:05:51] 1999 alone 1250 residents

[1:05:54] signed petitions about this

[1:05:55] land. So today changing the use

[1:05:57] of this hillside takes a vote

[1:05:59] of this body. Tomorrow it takes

[1:06:01] a use permit. This is not

[1:06:02] equivalent. Please don't

[1:06:04] approve this without a recorded

[1:06:05] is >> that your time next

[1:06:07] speaker I'm dan from d10. Come

[1:06:09] on down and >> eric you're eric

[1:06:11] or he spoke and monie >> I'm

[1:06:15] jessica and I wrote all of you

[1:06:17] asking that this rezoning

[1:06:19] request be paused what is being

[1:06:21] presented as a simple

[1:06:22] conforming rezoning is more

[1:06:24] nuanced and has many impacts

[1:06:26] both to the open space and to

[1:06:28] the industrial portions. In

[1:06:30] december 1999 our city council

[1:06:32] approved a motion to find a way

[1:06:34] to protect ibm's open space in

[1:06:36] perpetuity. Sadly that prior

[1:06:39] counsel failed >> to complete

[1:06:40] what it started but you must do

[1:06:42] better in 2026. Do not make the

[1:06:45] mistake of equating open space

[1:06:47] zoning with permanent

[1:06:49] protection. The word permanent

[1:06:51] >> means nothing if the open

[1:06:53] space is not legally tied to a

[1:06:55] conservation easement, a land

[1:06:57] trust or other binding

[1:06:58] protection with no immediate

[1:07:00] development proposal pending

[1:07:02] you have the time to secure the

[1:07:04] open space permanently for

[1:07:05] future >> generations. Pause

[1:07:07] the request now so that the

[1:07:09] environmental, legal and land

[1:07:11] use issues at stake get the

[1:07:13] proper attention by city

[1:07:14] leadership and the public.

[1:07:18] thank you. Next speaker >> lena

[1:07:20] come on down and america, your

[1:07:25] letter >> your mike there you

[1:07:27] go. This is on now. Okay. Larry

[1:07:30] ames, I'm just here to make

[1:07:31] sure that you consider this

[1:07:32] property some I want to see the

[1:07:35] open space preserved and if

[1:07:36] it's just sound this way you

[1:07:38] can change at any given

[1:07:39] tuesday. So I want to see you

[1:07:40] have an easement for >> it also

[1:07:43] the development has to be in a

[1:07:45] certain place. You don't want

[1:07:47] to shift around any place up

[1:07:48] there. It's right now it's

[1:07:49] sheltered in a dip in the top

[1:07:51] of mountains so it's hidden

[1:07:53] from the surrounding areas so I

[1:07:54] don't want it built anyplace

[1:07:56] else other than there. I just

[1:07:57] want to see you consider

[1:07:58] listing property. You do not

[1:07:59] want to be rushed through >>

[1:08:00] here. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:08:04] next >> speaker now go ahead.

[1:08:21] I'm >> a resident of district

[1:08:23] ten in almaden. I strongly

[1:08:26] opposed the rezoning of the

[1:08:27] property at its six 650 harry

[1:08:30] road rezoning more than 600

[1:08:32] acres of open space ibm land

[1:08:35] break the city council's

[1:08:37] original amendment commitment

[1:08:39] to keep this land as a

[1:08:40] permanent open space and

[1:08:42] disregards >> the clear

[1:08:44] opposition of the almaden

[1:08:45] community. Although no formal

[1:08:47] easement currently exists, the

[1:08:49] responsible step is to defer

[1:08:52] any decision until council

[1:08:54] finalize the 1999 motion

[1:08:56] protecting this land in

[1:08:58] perpetuity with the same

[1:09:00] concern applied to the 35 acre

[1:09:02] proposed for industrial park

[1:09:04] use. I'd respectfully ask that

[1:09:07] this item be removed from the

[1:09:08] consent calendar so the public

[1:09:10] can foley participate. Please

[1:09:12] read postpone action until the

[1:09:15] permanent open space

[1:09:16] protections the data center and

[1:09:18] large energy project

[1:09:20] regulations are complete by

[1:09:22] this this you got your time

[1:09:25] help helen >> brock come on

[1:09:26] down and carol peacefully dear

[1:09:35] leaders I am dan from d-10

[1:09:38] please vote no to the proposed

[1:09:39] rezoning of 650 harry road

[1:09:42] san jose urgently needs to set

[1:09:44] some standards to protect

[1:09:45] residents from water and power

[1:09:46] supply problems before we

[1:09:48] continue permitting large data

[1:09:49] centers or other redevelopment

[1:09:51] to harry road where allowed >>

[1:09:53] large data centers are driving

[1:09:54] up regional power prices

[1:09:56] hurting residents out competing

[1:09:58] us for water to lake tahoe

[1:09:59] region residents receive 13

[1:10:01] months notice that their power

[1:10:02] wholesaler will cut them off

[1:10:04] because of a new data center

[1:10:05] customer data center owners

[1:10:07] must own their additional

[1:10:08] generating capacity not buy it

[1:10:10] on the market so residents will

[1:10:12] pay for new supply and don't

[1:10:13] pay for stranded generators

[1:10:15] when the data centers shut down

[1:10:17] water is critically short

[1:10:19] supply so only closed loop

[1:10:20] water circuits should ever be

[1:10:22] approved. Okay, let's not have

[1:10:24] a toxic release like erin

[1:10:25] brockovich story. Okay.

[1:10:28] san jose needs an emergency

[1:10:29] project to define mitigation

[1:10:31] for data centers over a

[1:10:32] megawatt and should not rezone

[1:10:34] to accommodate them until these

[1:10:36] are in place. Thank you. Next

[1:10:39] speaker. Josephine come on down

[1:10:42] and then I have an anonymous

[1:10:44] card. Please do not vote. Okay

[1:10:50] or pass on this particular

[1:10:52] item. I have no confidence in

[1:10:55] the management nor the former

[1:10:57] >> city council member who is

[1:10:58] now a lobbyist for a real

[1:11:00] estate shark that is on this

[1:11:02] agenda an item such as this

[1:11:05] zone change should not have

[1:11:07] been I agenda raised under a

[1:11:09] consent agenda which is

[1:11:10] designed to escape public

[1:11:13] scrutiny. Wealthy real estate

[1:11:15] sharks deliberately bribe and

[1:11:17] manipulate city government to

[1:11:18] make american >> corporate fail

[1:11:20] like stand most chevron

[1:11:22] headquarters disclosure I'm not

[1:11:25] suicidal and I drive safely all

[1:11:27] the time. >> good afternoon

[1:11:35] mayor and council members lena

[1:11:37] drape with the santa clara

[1:11:38] valley open space authority. We

[1:11:39] are very grateful >> for

[1:11:41] councilmember casey pulling

[1:11:42] this item and for

[1:11:43] councilmember kim for asking

[1:11:44] several questions at the open

[1:11:45] space authority and community

[1:11:46] members have shared and

[1:11:47] expressed our priority is >>

[1:11:50] for request is for this item to

[1:11:52] be deferred to allow critical

[1:11:53] questions to be answered first.

[1:11:55] first, we asked the city to

[1:11:57] address the permanent

[1:11:58] protection of the 565 acre

[1:12:00] portion of open space on this

[1:12:01] property that your council in

[1:12:03] 1999 directed staff to

[1:12:05] permanently protect as a part

[1:12:06] of mitigation for the ibm

[1:12:07] development. While we

[1:12:09] appreciate the confirmation

[1:12:10] just previously provided from

[1:12:11] staff open space zoning does

[1:12:13] not equate to permanent

[1:12:15] protection additional action is

[1:12:17] needed such as through a

[1:12:18] conservation easement. Second,

[1:12:20] we understand that the city

[1:12:21] needs to address general plan

[1:12:22] inconsistencies. But as

[1:12:23] previously alluded to there is

[1:12:25] no reason that a rezoning for

[1:12:26] this site must occur before a

[1:12:28] project application as put

[1:12:29] forward. Besides increasing the

[1:12:31] perceived developable value for

[1:12:32] resale preemptively rezoning >>

[1:12:35] the site to enable. Thank >>

[1:12:37] you that your time. I'd also

[1:12:40] like to call sandy down it >>

[1:12:46] please take the ibm property

[1:12:48] off of the consent calendar.

[1:12:50] there's discussion of data

[1:12:51] center and as we all know or

[1:12:53] have been informed data centers

[1:12:54] use >> a lot of water and

[1:12:56] electricity until san jose has

[1:12:59] the opportunity to put

[1:13:00] guidelines in place to protect

[1:13:03] the public from misuse of that.

[1:13:05] I'd like to see this put on

[1:13:07] taken off the consent calendar

[1:13:09] so that we can discuss it as

[1:13:10] well as quite frankly the open

[1:13:12] space. We have a critical sorry

[1:13:14] everybody >> problem with

[1:13:16] housing. So before we make >> a

[1:13:18] general decision to block that

[1:13:20] property off and put in a dated

[1:13:22] for for open space and put in a

[1:13:24] data center, let's >> have a

[1:13:25] discussion about it all.

[1:13:27] anyway, thank you. Thank you.

[1:13:31] next >> speaker, I thank you

[1:13:33] for your time. I'm looking

[1:13:35] at this like it's not changing

[1:13:39] the building >> structure and

[1:13:40] we need housing and we need

[1:13:41] jobs and different >> things

[1:13:42] where it's not going to congest

[1:13:43] the neighborhood or bring

[1:13:44] pollutants or harmful things to

[1:13:47] the community to consider maybe

[1:13:49] having more housing. 51% of my

[1:13:51] taxes go to property taxes

[1:13:55] go >> to education. I don't

[1:13:57] have a problem with that. If we

[1:13:58] can approval what the children

[1:14:00] are being taught I don't want

[1:14:02] children being sexualized and

[1:14:03] getting pregnant. I've been a

[1:14:04] foster parent. I've had rehabs,

[1:14:07] I've had different things. So

[1:14:08] if we can upgrade the community

[1:14:09] , not build big things in

[1:14:11] people's backyard, the lady was

[1:14:13] saying that someone who's not

[1:14:14] even a national proposed a 750

[1:14:16] bed right next to >> her. I

[1:14:18] mean think what you want to

[1:14:19] live where people are and

[1:14:21] there's no >> set backs. We

[1:14:22] have to be practical that's

[1:14:23] going to congested

[1:14:24] neighborhood. There's enough

[1:14:25] open land >> that we can

[1:14:27] consider it but if we can

[1:14:28] utilize this property that's

[1:14:29] been sitting >> there and

[1:14:30] rotting for how long? I used to

[1:14:32] work at ibm. >> thank you. That

[1:14:35] your time? Next speaker good >>

[1:14:42] afternoon. My name is marni.

[1:14:44] I'm an attorney and a san jose

[1:14:46] resident. My work is

[1:14:48] constitutional and antitrust

[1:14:50] litigation which means I read

[1:14:52] regulations for a living and

[1:14:54] tell a court whether it sweeps

[1:14:55] too far or too little. I've

[1:14:57] read the city's proposed

[1:15:00] framework >> and I fear it's

[1:15:03] one that should concern this

[1:15:04] council and your constituents.

[1:15:07] two gaps stand out. First,

[1:15:09] there's no enforcement

[1:15:10] backbone. If a data center

[1:15:12] violates its terms pollutes

[1:15:13] water exceeds noise limits

[1:15:15] there's no clear review process

[1:15:17] and no real consequence.

[1:15:19] second, there's no aftercare

[1:15:21] provision. Nothing addresses

[1:15:24] what happens when an operator

[1:15:25] simply decides to up and leave.

[1:15:29] so my question to this city

[1:15:30] council is what regulatory

[1:15:33] story do you >> want to tell?

[1:15:35] thank you. >> thank you. Next

[1:15:37] speaker. Yeah. This city has

[1:15:43] lobbied sacramento for speed

[1:15:45] cameras, red light cameras,

[1:15:47] road diets, flock cameras and

[1:15:49] everything else. What >> you

[1:15:50] need to lobby sacramento for is

[1:15:53] a better utility grid. Pagani

[1:15:56] doesn't have it. Everybody

[1:15:58] knows it. If you think that

[1:15:59] you're >> going to run a data

[1:16:01] center here. I got it. I

[1:16:03] got a bridge to sell you. It's

[1:16:04] not >> going to work. I saw a

[1:16:06] smile from the mayor there. And

[1:16:08] yeah, I mean you don't have you

[1:16:09] can't even turn a fan on when

[1:16:11] it gets hot and your power goes

[1:16:12] out. Do you really think you're

[1:16:14] going to build this? I mean >>

[1:16:15] it sounds great. I mean imagine

[1:16:18] the water bill they're going to

[1:16:19] get. Anybody got their water

[1:16:21] bill >> lately with $150

[1:16:23] surcharge? Can't imagine what

[1:16:25] it would be like for a data

[1:16:26] center. Oh yeah. They're going

[1:16:27] to recycle the water. Sure they

[1:16:29] are. Right. It's not >> going

[1:16:30] to work. You know what? Maybe

[1:16:32] turn this place into a data

[1:16:33] center? I don't know. But

[1:16:35] anyway, everybody vote no on

[1:16:37] new data centers until you have

[1:16:39] proper >> electro proper

[1:16:41] electrical grid. It's >> just

[1:16:43] that simple. That's your time.

[1:16:45] next speaker I've called all

[1:16:47] of the in-person cards that I

[1:16:49] received for this item. If you

[1:16:50] did not hear your name please

[1:16:51] line up. I'm going to move on

[1:16:53] to the virtual commenters next.

[1:16:55] go >> ahead. Hello, my name is

[1:16:57] sandy and I'm a long term

[1:16:59] resident of almaden valley.

[1:17:01] first I want to thank council

[1:17:03] member casey for hearing the

[1:17:05] voices of your constituents and

[1:17:08] removing the proposed rezoning

[1:17:09] of 650 harry from the consent

[1:17:12] calendar and allowing for some

[1:17:15] public >> discussion. However I

[1:17:18] want >> everyone to know that I

[1:17:20] am still very concerned >> that

[1:17:24] we may be making a decision

[1:17:26] today. I would like to thank I

[1:17:30] think it was councilmember may

[1:17:32] >> for asking some astute

[1:17:34] questions. Thank you. But the

[1:17:37] issue is one of many that many

[1:17:42] or a significant number

[1:17:44] of aluminum valley residents

[1:17:46] are still not aware of this

[1:17:48] rezoning or even this meeting

[1:17:50] today. I >> am one of less than

[1:17:54] 100 people >> who received the

[1:17:56] postcard at the >> start

[1:18:01] of good time. I'm steve. Come

[1:18:03] on down

[1:18:14] . >> my name is steve martin. I

[1:18:19] am a geothermal developer. I'm

[1:18:21] manoora educated redneck with a

[1:18:24] couple of bachelors from

[1:18:25] stanford and I developed

[1:18:28] geothermal power the last year

[1:18:31] thermal plant I developed in

[1:18:32] nevada is supplying power to

[1:18:34] sacramento. The reason I bring

[1:18:36] this up today is that this

[1:18:39] rezoning issue deals with

[1:18:42] carbon because we don't know

[1:18:43] who the bidder or the contract

[1:18:47] party is. We're not sure what's

[1:18:49] going to happen in terms of the

[1:18:51] power source for the data

[1:18:52] center that they intend to put

[1:18:54] in there. We want to know if we

[1:18:56] can here today who the bidder

[1:18:59] will be and I have provided for

[1:19:02] the council's view some things

[1:19:06] that would happen if there were

[1:19:08] a new bidder that had a very

[1:19:11] progressive program to offer.

[1:19:13] so I've listed the kinds

[1:19:15] of things that we would propose

[1:19:16] to do out there which would add

[1:19:20] thank >> you that your time

[1:19:21] next speaker I'm sorry that

[1:19:24] your time. Hello, my >> name is

[1:19:33] jasmine jordan. I would like to

[1:19:34] remind this council and the

[1:19:36] mayor of their responsibility

[1:19:37] to their constituents and not

[1:19:39] to corporate spokespeople like

[1:19:40] eric shen over of ibm during

[1:19:43] his five minutes of speaking he

[1:19:46] focused on the point that the

[1:19:48] acreage of the ibm industrial

[1:19:50] park will remain the same. But

[1:19:53] that does not mean that the

[1:19:54] energy usage of the proposed

[1:19:57] whatever it is will stay the

[1:19:58] same. He wants to speed up

[1:20:01] rezoning for some project but

[1:20:03] he did not specify what and he

[1:20:05] wants it to pass before

[1:20:06] regulations. I would like to

[1:20:08] urge this council to put a

[1:20:11] pause on this rezoning until

[1:20:13] after regulations are passed.

[1:20:15] he mentioned bringing into

[1:20:17] modern times and tax revenue

[1:20:19] investment we can also generate

[1:20:21] tax revenue from increasing a

[1:20:23] corporate tax and on

[1:20:25] billionaires. Yeah that's it.

[1:20:27] thank you. Thank you, mr.

[1:20:30] speaker. When I go to public

[1:20:31] comment brian it will be

[1:20:33] followed by alice. So brian

[1:20:36] at home be prepared. Go ahead.

[1:20:39] hello. >> there has been a lot

[1:20:41] of secrecy around the

[1:20:43] development of the data centers

[1:20:44] over the past several months if

[1:20:46] not years. At first it was. Are

[1:20:49] there any applicants? No, there

[1:20:51] aren't any applicants. But

[1:20:52] here's the applicant. He's

[1:20:53] going to speak for five

[1:20:54] minutes. Clearly data centers

[1:20:56] are being discussed and

[1:20:58] developed outside of public

[1:21:00] meetings and private

[1:21:01] conversations without public

[1:21:03] input. Rezoning is already

[1:21:04] being moved to the table

[1:21:05] without any applicants without

[1:21:08] any applications. The public

[1:21:10] needs to have not just input.

[1:21:13] they need to have decision on

[1:21:14] whether data centers are built

[1:21:15] in >> their communities. Just

[1:21:17] >> saying oh we're going to

[1:21:18] have a public input that can

[1:21:20] mean a lot of things. I've been

[1:21:21] part of public input sessions.

[1:21:23] they're very small. They don't

[1:21:25] do a lot and it's not

[1:21:27] guaranteed that public input

[1:21:28] will be taken into account. So

[1:21:30] please hold off on rezoning

[1:21:32] this. Thank you. >> thank you,

[1:21:37] brian. First of all, if you use

[1:21:44] a cell phone or you youtube or

[1:21:45] anything else or stuff like

[1:21:47] this if you're using a data

[1:21:49] center. So we eventually have

[1:21:51] to find a way to I agree it

[1:21:53] shouldn't have been put on the

[1:21:54] consent calendar. Thank you for

[1:21:55] pulling that off you. When I

[1:21:58] saw that it was being pulled

[1:21:59] off and the consent calendar I

[1:22:01] almost fell out of my chair

[1:22:02] here because usually I don't

[1:22:04] think people read the letters

[1:22:06] and that's something I wish I I

[1:22:09] don't know. Toni has a hard job

[1:22:10] so I appreciate what you're

[1:22:11] trying to do. My email said

[1:22:14] that and everybody else that

[1:22:14] far better than I did. Thank

[1:22:16] you >> alice followed by alec I

[1:22:26] good afternoon may or may

[1:22:27] hammond council members this is

[1:22:29] alice kaufman for green

[1:22:30] foothills and I want to bring

[1:22:32] your attention to an issue that

[1:22:34] has not been mentioned yet and

[1:22:36] we mentioned it in a letter

[1:22:37] that we submitted but with all

[1:22:38] the public comment you may not

[1:22:39] have seen it. So there is a new

[1:22:41] state law sb 131 which creates

[1:22:44] a total exemption from sequel

[1:22:46] for advanced manufacturing

[1:22:48] facilities but only if they are

[1:22:50] located on industrially zoned

[1:22:51] parcels. So under the current

[1:22:53] pd zoning this total exemption

[1:22:56] does not apply but once it's

[1:22:57] rezone to industrial park it

[1:22:59] would apply and this advanced

[1:23:01] manufacturing facility

[1:23:03] exemption is an extremely broad

[1:23:04] and vague category of uses. It

[1:23:06] includes metal recycling,

[1:23:08] semiconductor manufacturing,

[1:23:09] lithium battery manufacturing,

[1:23:11] aerospace and defense

[1:23:13] manufacturing and more. So this

[1:23:15] is why we're asking for this

[1:23:16] item to move forward. We really

[1:23:18] want to work with staff to

[1:23:20] figure out a way to make sure

[1:23:21] that square will continue to

[1:23:23] apply to a project as was

[1:23:25] stated previously that it would

[1:23:26] apply. Thank you >> alec

[1:23:29] followed by dashiell. >> hello.

[1:23:35] I support permanently

[1:23:36] protecting the open space

[1:23:38] surrounding the former ibm site

[1:23:39] but that is not all that this

[1:23:41] rezoning would do. While

[1:23:42] approximately 565 acres would

[1:23:45] receive the open space zoning,

[1:23:46] another 35 acres would receive

[1:23:48] broader industrial park zoning

[1:23:50] which could open the door to

[1:23:52] manufacturing advanced

[1:23:53] manufacturing or even a data

[1:23:54] center with a special use

[1:23:56] permit. At the same time the

[1:23:58] city would eliminate more than

[1:23:59] 40 years of site specific plans

[1:24:01] development controls without

[1:24:03] telling the public exactly what

[1:24:04] protections would be lost. We

[1:24:06] also do not know whether the

[1:24:07] city ever fulfilled its

[1:24:09] commitment to secure permanent

[1:24:10] legal protection from the

[1:24:11] surrounding open space, open

[1:24:13] space zoning alone is not

[1:24:15] permanent. There's no

[1:24:16] development application

[1:24:17] pending. There's no

[1:24:17] demonstrated urgency and once

[1:24:19] these protections are removed

[1:24:20] recovering them is difficult.

[1:24:22] please remove this item from

[1:24:24] the consents and delay rezoning

[1:24:25] until the existing protections

[1:24:27] environmental consequences

[1:24:28] access road restrictions and

[1:24:30] permanent preservation of the

[1:24:31] open space are foley addressed.

[1:24:33] thank you. From an olive

[1:24:34] garden resident >> dashiell

[1:24:37] followed by linda hutchins. >>

[1:24:40] hello, my name is daniel leeds.

[1:24:42] I'm a stint as a resident and

[1:24:43] the conservation coordinator

[1:24:44] for the sierra club loma prieta

[1:24:46] chapter. We ask you >> to defer

[1:24:48] rezoning this property as many

[1:24:50] community members have already

[1:24:51] told you. We're concerned that

[1:24:52] rezoning this land to

[1:24:53] industrial park could lead to

[1:24:54] data centers and other harmful

[1:24:56] industrial uses to be built in

[1:24:58] this really sensitive area. The

[1:25:00] city and our communities

[1:25:01] deserve full disclosure and

[1:25:02] consideration of the legal,

[1:25:03] environmental and land use

[1:25:05] consequences of this rezoning.

[1:25:06] more community engagement and

[1:25:08] disclosure is needed at a

[1:25:09] minimum and you know the city

[1:25:11] really needs to put its foot

[1:25:13] forward and disclose its behind

[1:25:15] the scenes work that it's doing

[1:25:17] on data centers and other

[1:25:18] industrial projects because we

[1:25:20] know that there's a lot

[1:25:20] happening >> that you just

[1:25:22] simply aren't telling us until

[1:25:23] it's too late. So the city

[1:25:25] needs to do a better job

[1:25:26] of disclosing that internal

[1:25:27] work that it's engaging in >>

[1:25:28] every week. Thank you. >>

[1:25:34] darina followed by alice. >>

[1:25:38] hi. This >> is serena. I'm a

[1:25:42] san jose resident. I'm from

[1:25:43] district six but I wanted to

[1:25:47] come and just say I'm I'm in

[1:25:50] support of open space and

[1:25:52] protecting habitat and

[1:25:53] especially this area is a very

[1:25:55] botanically interesting area

[1:25:58] because go and experience the

[1:25:59] land. I mean if you if you're

[1:26:01] standing out there and open and

[1:26:02] you can see the poppies on this

[1:26:04] hillside, it's incredible. And

[1:26:06] I'm concerned about industrial

[1:26:08] development in this area and

[1:26:11] specifically datacenters and

[1:26:13] how is that going to impact the

[1:26:15] habitat and just echoing what

[1:26:18] we're ours was saying about

[1:26:20] ceca and you know these

[1:26:22] loopholes that people are

[1:26:23] trying to get through so please

[1:26:25] protect open space and defer

[1:26:28] the rezoning. Thank you alice

[1:26:35] >> followed by dave. >> hello.

[1:26:41] can you hear me? Yes. Okay. I'm

[1:26:44] highly skeptical. The claim

[1:26:46] made by the proponent of this

[1:26:47] rezoning that school will be

[1:26:49] applied when a specific project

[1:26:52] is considered. No doubt

[1:26:54] developers will take advantage

[1:26:56] of the new school loophole in

[1:26:58] the new school exemption that

[1:26:59] was opened by sb 131 for the

[1:27:03] very poorly defined category

[1:27:05] advanced manufacturing to build

[1:27:07] without any sequel review. The

[1:27:10] council should remove this item

[1:27:12] from the consent calendar. This

[1:27:14] has received only the most

[1:27:16] cursory consideration and do

[1:27:18] not make a rezoning definition

[1:27:20] decision until thorough study

[1:27:22] and solicitation of community

[1:27:25] community input has been done.

[1:27:29] thank you dave followed by

[1:27:34] linda. >> dave, are you there?

[1:27:50] okay, I'm going to go to linda.

[1:27:55] good afternoon. Council this is

[1:27:57] linda hutchins and with mothers

[1:27:58] out front silicon valley we ask

[1:28:01] you not to defer the decision

[1:28:02] on rezoning. Thank you to

[1:28:04] councilmember casey for pulling

[1:28:05] this item and the council her

[1:28:06] committee for inquiring about

[1:28:07] deferring the rezoning. This is

[1:28:09] too consequential a decision to

[1:28:11] rush. It's essential that you

[1:28:13] at first apparently protect the

[1:28:14] open space since open space

[1:28:15] zoning is not permanent. Don't

[1:28:17] be fooled by reassurances that

[1:28:19] it's not really a zoning

[1:28:20] change. Research in parking is

[1:28:22] much less impactful on habitat

[1:28:23] than other industrial uses. I

[1:28:25] want to echo alice kaufman's

[1:28:27] concern about sb 131 the state

[1:28:30] law that exempts all quote

[1:28:32] advanced manufacturing

[1:28:34] facilities from sequa. This is

[1:28:37] opening the pandora's box.

[1:28:38] don't let that happen. There's

[1:28:40] no rush. Take your time to

[1:28:41] totally understand the impacts

[1:28:43] of your decisions. I want to

[1:28:45] conclude with some comments

[1:28:46] that you know from open space

[1:28:48] stories don't have time to

[1:28:49] finish and her comment

[1:28:50] basically me because the

[1:28:52] current zoning is consistent

[1:28:53] with the general plan and that

[1:28:55] it allows us the uses with the

[1:28:57] designation seek review as

[1:28:59] necessary for you to even

[1:29:00] change the zoning of the

[1:29:01] status. >> sherry followed by

[1:29:05] blair

[1:29:15] as you heard me. Yes. Hi, this

[1:29:18] is nick limehouse with the

[1:29:20] santa clarita valley bird

[1:29:22] alliance. We sent you a joint

[1:29:25] letter with expressed several

[1:29:26] concerns and we're remain

[1:29:28] concerned. I would like to

[1:29:30] reiterate and emphasize the

[1:29:32] comments made here regarding

[1:29:33] the impacts of sb 131. This law

[1:29:37] exemptions and advancement

[1:29:39] factoring projects that are

[1:29:40] proposed on industrial lease on

[1:29:42] land from secure and this is

[1:29:44] very consequential for the

[1:29:45] community. Both the

[1:29:47] environmental community but

[1:29:49] also all the residents and all

[1:29:50] the wildlife and open space in

[1:29:52] that area. I would like to

[1:29:54] point out that the general plan

[1:29:56] specifically allows pd zoning

[1:29:59] to continue or to be on places

[1:30:01] that have unusual

[1:30:02] characteristics and the ibm

[1:30:05] campus does have unusual

[1:30:07] character. This has been is why

[1:30:10] so many people are here even

[1:30:11] though this was supposed to be

[1:30:13] a consent item. So robust

[1:30:16] community outreach is needed.

[1:30:20] there followed by sue >> hi

[1:30:23] where beekman. I hope I don't

[1:30:25] step on anyone's toes to try to

[1:30:27] address kind of the mechanics

[1:30:29] of this item. The planning

[1:30:31] director seems to be saying

[1:30:32] that you guys need to have a >>

[1:30:35] a review process, a permit

[1:30:39] process in order for an open

[1:30:41] democratic process to take

[1:30:42] place where council person

[1:30:44] command other council persons

[1:30:45] may feel that this needs a bit

[1:30:47] more discussion and time and we

[1:30:49] can't and it can't be right. So

[1:30:51] a real good luck that I'm on

[1:30:52] the side of this item sort

[1:30:54] of item not be rushed and we

[1:30:55] work towards an open public

[1:30:57] meeting process to really

[1:30:58] decide the future of digital

[1:31:00] centers for ourselves. The

[1:31:02] zoning questions of this item I

[1:31:04] suppose kind of like the flea

[1:31:05] market item where we have a

[1:31:06] community process to help build

[1:31:08] what can be the future of this

[1:31:10] area and not go straight to the

[1:31:12] permit process in order to

[1:31:13] solve the issue. Thank you >>

[1:31:17] sue followed by roland. Hi. I

[1:31:23] lived within half a mile of the

[1:31:25] entrance to this property for

[1:31:27] over 30 years. I'd like to

[1:31:29] point out that if the rezoning

[1:31:31] request for ibm is granted

[1:31:33] today the data center

[1:31:35] application can then be quickly

[1:31:37] submitted before new rules are

[1:31:39] announced which will exempt the

[1:31:41] data center from the regulatory

[1:31:43] oversight. The city is

[1:31:44] currently formalizing. Please

[1:31:47] delay defer consideration

[1:31:51] of this rezoning request until

[1:31:53] after new data center rules

[1:31:55] have been completed and are in

[1:31:57] force. For development on this

[1:31:59] property really needs to be

[1:32:00] done with full disclosure

[1:32:02] community input and clear

[1:32:04] rules. This is an inappropriate

[1:32:07] forum for the magnitude

[1:32:09] of issues that this land use

[1:32:11] and its history represent to

[1:32:12] the public and to the city.

[1:32:15] please defer this decision.

[1:32:18] this needs to be made with

[1:32:19] careful consideration and input

[1:32:21] from almaden valley residents.

[1:32:24] roland >> followed by connie.

[1:32:28] good afternoon >> mayor and

[1:32:29] council. My name is roland. I

[1:32:31] live in santa teresa one mile

[1:32:33] from bernal road. I actually

[1:32:36] support the applicants request

[1:32:38] but I also support everybody

[1:32:40] else's request for hearing this

[1:32:43] at a later date. I used to work

[1:32:46] for ibm. This research center

[1:32:51] was used as an r&d and

[1:32:53] laboratory for the last 40

[1:32:55] years. It is supported by a

[1:32:57] massive data center from day

[1:32:59] one but nobody outside ibm

[1:33:02] knows about it because the data

[1:33:03] center is actually inside the

[1:33:05] building. Now with regards to

[1:33:08] cooling, these data centers

[1:33:10] were so powerful that 40 years

[1:33:12] ago ibm used them at night to

[1:33:15] burn in thermal conduction

[1:33:17] module because they were the

[1:33:18] first computers that used water

[1:33:20] for cooling. Last thing I would

[1:33:22] like a little row to be

[1:33:24] reopened so that we can drive

[1:33:26] from santa teresa to almaden

[1:33:27] valley. Thank >> you connie.

[1:33:32] followed by jessica. Hello,

[1:33:37] my name is connie. Good

[1:33:38] morning, mayor and council

[1:33:39] members. I urge council to

[1:33:41] defer the rezoning of the

[1:33:43] former ibm almaden research

[1:33:45] center and I ask for extensive

[1:33:48] community outreach. It is clear

[1:33:50] that many development groups

[1:33:52] have been discussing ibm's

[1:33:54] sale. Therefore it is critical

[1:33:56] to allow community input as

[1:33:58] well and to take the steps to

[1:34:01] permanently protect the area.

[1:34:03] as it was originally planned,

[1:34:05] many people have spoken on this

[1:34:07] and have left you with enough

[1:34:09] information to realize that you

[1:34:12] really need to stop and think

[1:34:14] before you make a decision on

[1:34:17] this. Thank you, jessica.

[1:34:22] followed by dr. Carla jessica

[1:34:30] martinez. >> hello? Can you

[1:34:32] hear me? Yes, hi. This just I'm

[1:34:35] here to ask for this to be

[1:34:37] postponed after hearing the

[1:34:38] gentleman from ibm speak.

[1:34:40] speak. It is more clear to slow

[1:34:43] this process down and there is

[1:34:44] no need to rush. We have

[1:34:46] already seen what is happening

[1:34:48] to our city by the sale of the

[1:34:50] land of great america. Just

[1:34:52] like that land with the what do

[1:34:55] you call it the proposal the

[1:34:57] person that bought it most

[1:34:58] likely will turn that into a

[1:35:00] data center or warehouses. We

[1:35:02] don't need to sell this land

[1:35:04] and give up what beauty we

[1:35:06] have. Thank you, dr. Carlo

[1:35:11] followed by correct. >> >>

[1:35:17] hello? Can you hear me? Yes.

[1:35:20] okay. Yes. So I am a something

[1:35:23] , isn't it? And I'm definitely

[1:35:25] opposed to the data centers and

[1:35:28] pushing this through now we

[1:35:29] already know just looking

[1:35:31] at the news in different cities

[1:35:33] that are currently have data

[1:35:35] centers that they are posing

[1:35:38] air pollution issues, energy

[1:35:39] consumption emission issues,

[1:35:41] water consumption issues,

[1:35:43] public health issues. So we

[1:35:45] don't need to make any rash

[1:35:46] decisions we need to everyone

[1:35:48] have a say and what why not

[1:35:52] just use keep the land as it is

[1:35:56] like that's what we need to do

[1:35:57] and thank you >> kat >>

[1:36:01] followed by jill follow. Can

[1:36:05] you guys hear me? Yes. Hi, I'm

[1:36:08] katrina. I'm also known as cat

[1:36:10] and I urge the city council to

[1:36:12] defer this item and prioritize

[1:36:14] the long term well-being of san

[1:36:15] jose residents over short term

[1:36:17] economic gains or create

[1:36:19] lasting environmental

[1:36:20] degradation, health impacts and

[1:36:22] water scarcity that our

[1:36:23] community cannot afford. I

[1:36:25] respectfully demand that the

[1:36:26] council to explicitly exclude

[1:36:28] data center development from

[1:36:29] this rezoning decision until

[1:36:31] the city has set in stone

[1:36:32] standards with legally binding

[1:36:34] enforcement delving into the

[1:36:36] cumulative public health impact

[1:36:37] analysis of planned and

[1:36:38] proposed data centers and

[1:36:40] established and has established

[1:36:42] community protection with

[1:36:44] legally binding consequences as

[1:36:45] core requirements. Thank you

[1:36:48] for listening and thank you for

[1:36:49] your time today. >> thank you

[1:36:52] jill followed by dave. I worked

[1:37:01] >> at ibm starting back in

[1:37:03] 1989. I was at the actually

[1:37:05] at the santa teresa laboratory

[1:37:07] but we had frequent meetings

[1:37:09] over and sometimes over

[1:37:10] dominant plus so some friends

[1:37:12] were over there. We'd go over

[1:37:14] there a lot and go hiking, take

[1:37:16] walks in that area. >> the

[1:37:18] thing is I want to point out

[1:37:19] that even if it's quote only

[1:37:21] end quote a 35 acre area that

[1:37:24] there talking about presently

[1:37:26] for industrial use you can't

[1:37:28] have the >> road that's there

[1:37:29] now is a road a two lane road

[1:37:31] for ordinary vehicles.

[1:37:32] obviously if there's a new

[1:37:35] development there, new

[1:37:37] industrial uses the road would

[1:37:38] be completely would have to

[1:37:40] change and widen and everything

[1:37:42] like that plus I just want to

[1:37:44] point out it's a foolish idea

[1:37:46] to have a foolish place for

[1:37:48] industrial development is right

[1:37:50] in the middle of hundreds

[1:37:51] of acres of open space. Thank

[1:37:52] you very much >> dave followed

[1:37:56] by vince venkata dave I your

[1:38:02] side I can hear you this time.

[1:38:04] >> okay thank you. Sorry about

[1:38:06] that. They pushed a resident

[1:38:07] of the santa teresa

[1:38:08] neighborhood from the late 80s

[1:38:10] until 93 when I became a

[1:38:12] resident of almaden valley in

[1:38:14] 99 I had conversations with

[1:38:16] my council member and probably

[1:38:17] eric and participated in

[1:38:20] community meetings about a

[1:38:21] proposal for the development

[1:38:23] of some of the ibm's open

[1:38:24] space. The sale was canceled

[1:38:27] when it became clear that ibm

[1:38:29] had committed to a permanent

[1:38:31] open space restriction as part

[1:38:33] of the almaden research center

[1:38:35] development the council

[1:38:36] committed to permanent open

[1:38:39] space in perpetuity. It's

[1:38:42] critical in terms of public

[1:38:44] governance protection of the

[1:38:46] serpentine habitat, historic

[1:38:47] bar and rock walls,

[1:38:49] contribution to the quality

[1:38:51] of the adjacent santa clara

[1:38:52] teresa or santa teresa county

[1:38:54] park that the open space

[1:38:56] remains open space in

[1:38:58] perpetuity. Please defer. Thank

[1:39:01] you very much >> venkata >>

[1:39:03] online followed by roberta

[1:39:05] moore in person. So roberta

[1:39:09] go ahead and come on down and

[1:39:13] venkata go ahead. I see you're

[1:39:18] on muted but we're not hearing

[1:39:19] you. Okay. I'm >> going to

[1:39:27] go to roberta moore in person.

[1:39:33] hi. Thank you. I'm roberta

[1:39:35] moore from d-10. And first I

[1:39:38] want to acknowledge you for

[1:39:40] setting standards for

[1:39:41] environmental protections with

[1:39:45] air data centers. I just want

[1:39:48] some facts 800 and >> seven

[1:39:50] 160,000,116 million gallons >>

[1:39:54] of water per year and

[1:39:56] 876,000,000 kilowatt >> hours

[1:40:00] per year. So we have electrical

[1:40:03] issues, water issues and we

[1:40:05] have traffic issues out there.

[1:40:07] so >> please make if you ignore

[1:40:10] all this feedback please make

[1:40:13] the company pay for this and

[1:40:16] fix these problems and please

[1:40:19] >> require they pay for >> in

[1:40:24] house no water cooling system.

[1:40:27] thank you >> katherine matheson

[1:40:31] come on down

[1:40:48] . >> hello. I've lived all

[1:40:53] my life in cnn's say since 1950

[1:40:57] we've lived in the same house

[1:40:58] and in the rose garden and I

[1:41:02] hate to see this proposal that

[1:41:05] you're presenting happen and

[1:41:08] destroy our historical

[1:41:10] neighbors. There's so many

[1:41:12] other ideas. I have a degree in

[1:41:15] biology, ag and forestry and a

[1:41:17] master's in landscape

[1:41:18] architecture and helped

[1:41:19] singapore create their gardens

[1:41:21] city so I know what I'm talking

[1:41:22] about >> different ideas put

[1:41:26] housing >> under name >> I'm

[1:41:29] sorry this is >> just the ibm

[1:41:31] site I think you're talking

[1:41:33] about the land use site and

[1:41:34] we're taking up later today I'm

[1:41:36] talking about what >> the this

[1:41:39] item we're on is the ibm site

[1:41:41] and the potential rezoning

[1:41:42] of that one site. I think you

[1:41:43] may be speaking to the general

[1:41:45] plan review >> item. Oh, okay.

[1:41:47] so that'll be coming up and I

[1:41:49] throw >> down you can come back

[1:41:52] >> up when we get to that I if

[1:41:53] you're speaking to the ibm item

[1:41:55] I'll give you the rest of your

[1:41:56] time. I just you were talking

[1:41:57] about housing and landscape I

[1:41:59] think this is probably not the

[1:42:00] ibm item >> I did great. Okay.

[1:42:06] we'll come back to you when we

[1:42:07] get to that item. Thank you,

[1:42:10] toni. Do we have more public

[1:42:11] speakers? So back >> to

[1:42:12] council. Okay. All right. Well

[1:42:14] >> thank you to everyone who

[1:42:15] weighed in. We're coming back

[1:42:17] to council. I did just want to

[1:42:18]

[1:42:19] referenced it for those who may

[1:42:21] not be following it as closely

[1:42:23] specifically on data >>

[1:42:25] centers, the council has

[1:42:26] instructed city staff to

[1:42:28] initiate a process over the

[1:42:31] rest of this year of community

[1:42:32] engagement starting with a

[1:42:33] listening session this this

[1:42:36] week and the in fact tomorrow

[1:42:39] evening where well we already

[1:42:41] have some of the strictest

[1:42:42] standards in the country. The

[1:42:44] idea is in every category

[1:42:45] of concern can san jose be the

[1:42:47] national leader and have the

[1:42:48] highest standards and really

[1:42:50] ensure that we're protecting

[1:42:52] all of the interests the

[1:42:53] community's expressed on the

[1:42:55] specific site which is the ibm

[1:42:59] facility out on harry road? I

[1:43:01] do want to come back to the

[1:43:02] council member for district ten

[1:43:04] and give him the floor once

[1:43:07] again and we'll continue with

[1:43:08] the council deliberation.

[1:43:11] councilmember casey thank >>

[1:43:12] you, mayor. I want to thank

[1:43:13] everybody that came out and you

[1:43:14] folks on zoom as well. I know

[1:43:15] this is an important piece

[1:43:18] of property all the property is

[1:43:20] important to san jose but the

[1:43:21] open space component and the

[1:43:22] fact that this is located in a

[1:43:24] beautiful area I understand the

[1:43:25] concern but I just want to ask

[1:43:28] staff or the attorneys this is

[1:43:30] an eventuality in terms of us

[1:43:32] having to do this conforming

[1:43:33] rezoning. If we don't do it

[1:43:34] now, it's going to happen

[1:43:35] eventually anyway correctly

[1:43:37] correct. Sorry. Yes, that is

[1:43:42] correct. So there's no stopping

[1:43:43] this >> not at this moment. But

[1:43:48] given >> that, is there a way

[1:43:50] that we can somehow direct

[1:43:51] staff to pursue the easement

[1:43:54] for the conservation easement,

[1:43:56] have that be part of this

[1:43:57] proceeding >> so we can

[1:43:59] absolutely pursue that? It

[1:44:00] requires us to work obviously

[1:44:02] with the property owner and the

[1:44:03] property owners be willing to

[1:44:05] offer up that easement but it's

[1:44:06] certainly something we can

[1:44:07] explore with them. Eric can we

[1:44:11] do you mind if I pull eric now

[1:44:12] eric you're nodding your head

[1:44:13] that the property owner would

[1:44:14] be open to pursuing an easement

[1:44:15] on the open space which is I

[1:44:28] just want to >> be clear that

[1:44:29] we're in a transition period,

[1:44:30] right? Ibm still owns the

[1:44:31] property, right? So we can't be

[1:44:33] making commitments for ibm's

[1:44:34] property. But should the

[1:44:36] property change ownership that

[1:44:38] >> the new owners would be

[1:44:41] interested in having that

[1:44:42] discussion obviously. Okay. I

[1:44:49] think the issue here though is

[1:44:51] as was stated, this is an

[1:44:52] eventuality anyway. This is

[1:44:54] something that's coming down

[1:44:55] the pike. I'm interested in

[1:44:58] having the property >> pay

[1:45:00] taxes be developed into

[1:45:01] something that's going to be

[1:45:02] productive for us economically

[1:45:04] rather than just sitting there

[1:45:05] dormant. There's nothing I've

[1:45:07] heard here so far from staff

[1:45:09] and the attorneys that this

[1:45:10] open space is somehow in

[1:45:12] jeopardy or that we've

[1:45:13] foreclosed on any opportunity

[1:45:14] to have that easement at some

[1:45:16] point in time. Right now this

[1:45:18] decision preserves the open

[1:45:20] space as is. So I'm not sure

[1:45:22] what the concern is at the

[1:45:24] moment from the community. And

[1:45:27] in addition to that we're not

[1:45:28] actually having a conversation

[1:45:29] about data centers right now.

[1:45:31] this is a step towards it. I

[1:45:33] want to acknowledge that. But

[1:45:35] we're not having a data center

[1:45:36] conversation at the moment.

[1:45:37] we're just doing what the state

[1:45:39] is required of us in terms

[1:45:41] of conforming to zoning to meet

[1:45:43] our guidelines or general plan.

[1:45:44] so >> I with that I'll make a

[1:45:46] motion to support or the the

[1:45:49] rezoning I >> think.

[1:45:53] councilmember we have a second

[1:45:54] from councilor cohen. Can I ask

[1:45:56] steph just on that point

[1:45:57] of information, can you expound

[1:46:00] a little bit for the public on

[1:46:02] why this is an eventuality just

[1:46:06] in terms of realigning the

[1:46:07] zoning it would be helpful if

[1:46:09] you all we are in here

[1:46:10] constantly doing rezonings

[1:46:12] because of state law. Can you

[1:46:13] please share more about what we

[1:46:15] are mandated by state law to do

[1:46:17] and what we're not mandated to

[1:46:18] do? >> so there is state law sb

[1:46:22] 1333 that requires for charter

[1:46:24] cities conforming rezoning in

[1:46:26] alignment between the zoning

[1:46:28] and the general plan. So the

[1:46:29] city has been taking different

[1:46:31] batches of sites across the

[1:46:33] city and bringing them before

[1:46:34] council to align our zoning and

[1:46:36] the general plan since this

[1:46:38] application is proposed by a

[1:46:40] private entity we have you

[1:46:42] know, brought this up as part

[1:46:44] of that application but

[1:46:45] ultimately the city is tasked

[1:46:47] to to have conforming zoning

[1:46:49] throughout the city. Okay. And

[1:46:51] then and I'll turn to other

[1:46:52] colleagues who are speaking

[1:46:53] just a moment. I'm guessing all

[1:46:57] of us want to see the open

[1:46:59] space. I know councilor casey

[1:47:00] cares deeply about this, want

[1:47:02] to see the open space there

[1:47:03] that ibm intended to keep open

[1:47:06] space forever more see that

[1:47:08] protected. Can you share a

[1:47:10] little more about if we do move

[1:47:13] forward with this conforming

[1:47:15] rezoning the protections for

[1:47:17] open space and what would

[1:47:18] actually share a little >> more

[1:47:20] I heard a concern about it.

[1:47:22] what would that process look

[1:47:23] like? Should someone say a

[1:47:24] future owner try to change

[1:47:26] that? That's zoning. Yes,

[1:47:29] absolutely. So if there was a

[1:47:30] future proposal to change the

[1:47:32] zoning for that open space, it

[1:47:34] would also need a general plan

[1:47:35] amendment first of all. So that

[1:47:37] is that does require councilor

[1:47:38] approval. It requires

[1:47:39] environmental review and the

[1:47:41] due process so public input to

[1:47:44] that through that process. In

[1:47:46] addition the the open space

[1:47:50] zoning that's currently in the

[1:47:52] zoning in the plan development

[1:47:53] zoning is actually less

[1:47:55] restrictive than the city's

[1:47:56] general plan open space

[1:47:57] designation. Can you say that

[1:47:59] again so that the existing open

[1:48:01] space zoning is less than the

[1:48:03] pd in the pd is less

[1:48:05] restrictive than our general

[1:48:06] plan? Open space designation

[1:48:08] because the general plan

[1:48:09] requires that any structures in

[1:48:11] an open space designee ation

[1:48:13] has to come forward with a

[1:48:14] conditional use permit. I >>

[1:48:16] see so that the rezoning the

[1:48:19] portion going to open space

[1:48:20] actually would be more

[1:48:21] restrictive than what it

[1:48:22] currently is, correct? Correct.

[1:48:24] okay. If anything >> I would

[1:48:26]

[1:48:28] to those who are deeply

[1:48:29] concerned although I would say

[1:48:31] if anything the trend has been

[1:48:32] toward creating and protecting

[1:48:34] more open space, not less. That

[1:48:36] has been the steady trend now

[1:48:38] for many years. Okay, thanks

[1:48:41] for clarifying. I think that

[1:48:42] added some helpful context. Let

[1:48:45] me turn now to other colleagues

[1:48:47] council our committee. Thank

[1:48:50] you so much to all who came out

[1:48:53] to give your thoughts on this

[1:48:55] item and thank you to

[1:48:56] my colleague

[1:48:57] councilmember casey who who

[1:48:59] leads this. >> you know, one

[1:49:01] of the things that I am aware

[1:49:02] is while the open space there

[1:49:05] are some protection, the only

[1:49:07] way to ensure >> it really is

[1:49:08] if you do have a permanent

[1:49:10] conservation easement on it.

[1:49:12] and I just want to get

[1:49:13] clarification on that point. We

[1:49:15] cannot require an applicant as

[1:49:18] a as a part of their rezoning

[1:49:22] to require a conservation

[1:49:24] easement on something that has

[1:49:26] been known to be permanent open

[1:49:29] space. Is that a question for

[1:49:33] the city attorney or yeah, well

[1:49:35] >> whoever whoever wants to

[1:49:36] give me the right answer. So

[1:49:40] the easement would require both

[1:49:42] parties to agree to come to

[1:49:44] some agreement so we cannot

[1:49:45] require okay so >> we can't we

[1:49:48] can't make that as a

[1:49:49] requirement of the rezoning.

[1:49:51] correct. Okay. Okay. That that

[1:49:53] makes it very clear. You know,

[1:49:55] I think that it is unfortunate

[1:49:58] that in this circumstance we're

[1:50:00] not allowing more time. I would

[1:50:02] have liked to have seen more

[1:50:04] time as was requested by some

[1:50:07] of the letters that we received

[1:50:10] because I think that, you know,

[1:50:12] while yes, we want to update it

[1:50:15] and all of that, I think that

[1:50:16] having conversations with the

[1:50:18] community of what is being done

[1:50:21] is appropriate right? I mean

[1:50:23] this application is not going

[1:50:24] to turn around or we're not

[1:50:26] going to have something there,

[1:50:28] you know, like right away. So

[1:50:30] you know, I do think it's

[1:50:31] important to to have that

[1:50:34] community input. I mean even if

[1:50:35] it's like two weeks or what

[1:50:37] have you simply because it

[1:50:39] allows the community to better

[1:50:41] understand where we're going.

[1:50:43] so I will not be supporting the

[1:50:46] motion unless

[1:50:48] councilmember casey wants to

[1:50:50] wait two weeks to allow people

[1:50:53] to get an understanding further

[1:50:55] understanding I was not aware

[1:50:58] of sb 131 so I just think that

[1:51:02] it's important to have that

[1:51:04] community input. But I don't

[1:51:07] know if you would allow a two

[1:51:09] week hold off. >> I appreciate

[1:51:12] community input and I don't

[1:51:15] think bad news doesn't age well

[1:51:16] and that community input is not

[1:51:18] going to actually change

[1:51:19] anything. I don't want to be

[1:51:20] performative about it and just

[1:51:22] give folks an opportunity to

[1:51:23] vent when they're not going to

[1:51:24] actually change anything. Scuse

[1:51:27] me ridiculous. >> so please

[1:51:30] don't boo or cheer during

[1:51:33] council deliberations are off

[1:51:34] to ask you to leave the

[1:51:35] chamber. Good

[1:51:37] councilmember yeah. So just for

[1:51:37] that reason I mean it's not

[1:51:38] going to change anything. This

[1:51:39] is an eventuality that's going

[1:51:40] to happen so I appreciate and

[1:51:42] we did receive the input but I

[1:51:44] don't see how that input is

[1:51:45] going to actually change the

[1:51:47] ultimate decision. Yeah, no I

[1:51:49] understand. I thought that that

[1:51:51] would be helpful. I also think

[1:51:54] that in the meantime the the

[1:51:57] applicant and the owners would

[1:52:00] perhaps think about I know we

[1:52:02] can't require it but would

[1:52:03] think about you know what might

[1:52:06] be possible in terms of a

[1:52:08] voluntary conservation easement

[1:52:10] that way they you know for sure

[1:52:11] right for those coming in those

[1:52:13] going out so yes but thank you.

[1:52:16] thank you for your thoughts.

[1:52:18] but I >> also think there's an

[1:52:19] opportunity if they do come

[1:52:20] back for the industrial portion

[1:52:22] to have that conversation

[1:52:24] before we approve whatever they

[1:52:25] decide to do with the

[1:52:26] industrial part, we can have

[1:52:27] that be a condition and have

[1:52:29] that conversation at that time

[1:52:31] which I think is more

[1:52:31] appropriate than at this moment

[1:52:32] . Thank you. Thanks >> council

[1:52:37] member let's go to councilor

[1:52:39] compost next. >> thank you

[1:52:43] mayor and thank you for

[1:52:44] my colleagues cousin casey for

[1:52:47] pulling this item.

[1:52:48] councilmember camejo for your

[1:52:49] questions and the members

[1:52:51] of the community who came out

[1:52:52] to engage with us on this item.

[1:52:55] I just have two questions that

[1:52:56] I want to ask staff and the

[1:52:58] first is for more information

[1:53:00] about sb 131 and the to

[1:53:02] exemptions for certain

[1:53:04] industrial uses >> I can start

[1:53:10] and then I'll see if david

[1:53:11] kianna principal planner wants

[1:53:13] to chime in. So sb 131 went

[1:53:15] into effect last july and

[1:53:18] allows for that. The state

[1:53:20] essentially has allowed for

[1:53:22] exemptions for advanced

[1:53:23] manufacturing uses from the

[1:53:26] california environmental

[1:53:26] quality act. So from

[1:53:28] environmental review and so

[1:53:30] this particular site how sb 131

[1:53:33] could potentially affect it is

[1:53:35] that if the ip rezoning is

[1:53:38] approved then there could be

[1:53:40] certain very limited advanced

[1:53:41] manufacturing uses within that

[1:53:43] ip zoning table that are

[1:53:46] allowed that may be exempt from

[1:53:47] those requirements. However,

[1:53:49] the general plan the ip general

[1:53:52] plan designation at a

[1:53:53] programmatic level already

[1:53:54] allows for those uses. David >>

[1:53:58] and >> good afternoon

[1:54:00] councilmember campos david

[1:54:01] conference will plan on the

[1:54:02] city's environment review team

[1:54:03] so sb 131 as I said is a

[1:54:07] statutory submission approved

[1:54:09] by the state that exempts a

[1:54:10] very targeted group of land use

[1:54:15] actually projects for it under

[1:54:17] the umbrella of advanced

[1:54:18] manufacturing. It's things like

[1:54:20] nanotechnology, biotechnology

[1:54:23] you know research and

[1:54:23] development involving some sort

[1:54:25] of manufacturing. It's very

[1:54:27] limited. I do want to mention

[1:54:30] and reiterate that it does not

[1:54:32] include most of the land uses

[1:54:34] in the wild or the industrial

[1:54:36] park zoning districts such as

[1:54:37] offices and warehouses and data

[1:54:39] centers. Those are not within

[1:54:41] >> the group of projects >>

[1:54:43] that would be exempt under sb

[1:54:45] 131 statutory exemption. So

[1:54:48] projects that proceed if there

[1:54:50] was to be a project that was to

[1:54:51] proceed on the site under the

[1:54:54] industrial park zoning

[1:54:55] designation would have to

[1:54:57] go through its own secure

[1:54:58] process at that time and for

[1:55:00] example or data center would

[1:55:01] have to go through its own full

[1:55:03] environmental review process

[1:55:04] at that time. Thank you, david.

[1:55:07] I'm in there for that response

[1:55:10] and then this second question

[1:55:13] is kind of also a request so

[1:55:16] you know, given what we heard

[1:55:17] about not being able to require

[1:55:21] the conservation easement

[1:55:24] of the future property owner,

[1:55:27] can staff guarantee that you

[1:55:30] will provide the information

[1:55:31] that they need to be informed

[1:55:34] about, you know, that that

[1:55:37] option that they have I don't

[1:55:39] know if that's common practice

[1:55:41] but for this project is that

[1:55:43] something that staff could

[1:55:44] ensure that the project

[1:55:46] applicant or the next property

[1:55:47] owner knows that a conservation

[1:55:50] easement is a request of the

[1:55:52] community and that they have

[1:55:54] that information? >> yes,

[1:55:57] councilmember absolutely. Thank

[1:55:58] you for confirming that. Those

[1:56:00] are my questions. >> thanks,

[1:56:03] councilmember. I appreciate it.

[1:56:04] let's turn now to

[1:56:05] councilmember claudius. Thank

[1:56:06] you, mayor, and thank you staff

[1:56:07] for clarifying the process for

[1:56:09] actually pursuing the

[1:56:10] conservation easement on a

[1:56:11] follow up since it was just

[1:56:12] referenced a couple of times

[1:56:13] about some of the commitments

[1:56:15] made by a previous council back

[1:56:17] in the 90s to pursue permanent

[1:56:18] protection of the open space.

[1:56:20] what is your take on that

[1:56:22] history is the history here

[1:56:24] essentially that council made a

[1:56:25] recommendation that was not

[1:56:26] legally enforceable or was it

[1:56:28] too ambiguous kind of what

[1:56:30] council was intending? So again

[1:56:32] >> councilmember, I apologize.

[1:56:33] I'm just trying to get to a

[1:56:34] better mike. That's the the

[1:56:38] previous direction came through

[1:56:39] a memo by then

[1:56:41] councilmember dando that

[1:56:43] directed staff to pursue a

[1:56:45] conservation easement. So

[1:56:46] obviously we don't have all

[1:56:48] of the records of the

[1:56:49] conversations that occurred

[1:56:50] after that but it does require

[1:56:52] both parties to be willing to

[1:56:53] pursue that. And so the

[1:56:56] eventuality is that we don't

[1:56:58] have that so we can only assume

[1:56:59] at this point that no agreement

[1:57:00] was reached. Thank >> you. And

[1:57:03] then just to follow up on

[1:57:04] councilmember casey's point, is

[1:57:05] this something that could be

[1:57:06] potentially added as a

[1:57:07] condition for any future actual

[1:57:09] project application on the

[1:57:10] industrial zone portion >>

[1:57:12] of the site? So again, it would

[1:57:13] >> be similar direction to

[1:57:15] pursue it that certainly

[1:57:17] something that we could >>

[1:57:18] engage with an applicant with

[1:57:20] prior to approval of that

[1:57:22] application and just sort

[1:57:23] of see what their willingness

[1:57:24] is to have the conversation and

[1:57:26] then do some follow up work

[1:57:27] around them. Thank you. You

[1:57:29] know, I think it's clear that

[1:57:30] obviously the community itself

[1:57:32] but also many of us up here

[1:57:33] would like to see some firmer

[1:57:35] protections for the open space

[1:57:36] component here. So whatever

[1:57:38] form that takes, I'm hopeful

[1:57:39] that if an actual project

[1:57:40] application comes back on this

[1:57:42] site that we can collectively

[1:57:43] move towards better protections

[1:57:44] for this open space. But in the

[1:57:46] meantime it is good to

[1:57:47] at least know that the general

[1:57:48] plan open space designation

[1:57:50] will include some additional

[1:57:51] safeguards that are not present

[1:57:52] under the existing pd zoning.

[1:57:54] thank you. Thanks council

[1:57:57] member I don't see any other

[1:57:59] hands so toni I think we're

[1:58:01] ready to vote on the motion by

[1:58:02] councilor casey >>

[1:58:14] . Motion passes 9 to 2 >> with

[1:58:20] mae and campos voting no. Okay

[1:58:24] . Thank you, toni. We are on to

[1:58:26] our next item. That was ladies

[1:58:28] consent rhonda item 3.1 which

[1:58:30] is the report of the city

[1:58:32] manager. >> thank you, mayor. I

[1:58:35] have no report today. Okay.

[1:58:37] thank you, jennifer rhonda,

[1:58:37] item 3.3 this is the housing

[1:58:40] department law loan portfolio

[1:58:43] audit report. Take a moment for

[1:58:47] city staff to move down to the

[1:58:51] box >>

[1:59:10] and joe, when you in the timber

[1:59:11] ready go ahead and get started.

[1:59:13] yes. So good afternoon >> joy

[1:59:19] city order. I'm here with

[1:59:21] alison, polly adrian perez and

[1:59:22] maria vi to present are on

[1:59:25] affordable multiple multifamily

[1:59:26] housing loan portfolio clear

[1:59:28] goals and stronger oversight

[1:59:29] would improve monitoring also

[1:59:30] in the boxes eric sullivan from

[1:59:32] the housing department >>

[1:59:36] affordable >> housing serves

[1:59:37] low to moderate income

[1:59:38] residents in the city of san

[1:59:40] jose to support the development

[1:59:41] of affordable multifamily

[1:59:43] housing. The city's housing

[1:59:44] department provides loans to

[1:59:46] developers for the construction

[1:59:47] of new properties and the

[1:59:48] preservation of existing

[1:59:49] properties. Along with the

[1:59:51] loans come restrictions on

[1:59:52] tenant rents and income to

[1:59:54] ensure that the units remain

[1:59:55] affordable over the life of the

[1:59:57] agreement and the affordability

[1:59:58] period. Housing staff are

[2:00:00] expected to verify that

[2:00:01] property owners repay loans for

[2:00:03] affordability restrictions and

[2:00:04] maintain buildings at the time

[2:00:06] of the audit, the permanent

[2:00:07] loan portfolio totaled over

[2:00:08] $745 million with nearly 25,000

[2:00:12] units with active loans

[2:00:14] affordability restrictions or

[2:00:16] were in the pipeline across

[2:00:18] roughly 220 properties. Many

[2:00:21] loans were recorded before 2012

[2:00:23] and are also subject to

[2:00:24] regulations from lenders and

[2:00:26] government agencies including

[2:00:27] the state and the federal

[2:00:28] government. The objective

[2:00:30] of this audit was to assess

[2:00:31] housing processes for managing

[2:00:33] the affordable housing loan

[2:00:34] portfolio including loan

[2:00:36] servicing and compliance

[2:00:37] monitoring as described in the

[2:00:40] city's adopted operating budget

[2:00:41] in addition to providing loans,

[2:00:42] housing manages and oversees

[2:00:44] the city's affordable housing

[2:00:45] loan portfolio portfolio

[2:00:47] including loan servicing and

[2:00:48] monitoring and compliance

[2:00:49] of deed restricted apartment

[2:00:51] apartments. Housing's role is

[2:00:53] to provide asset management

[2:00:54] which involves monitoring the

[2:00:55] financial performance

[2:00:57] of properties and the overall

[2:00:58] portfolio which differs from

[2:01:00] property management which

[2:01:01] relates to the day to day

[2:01:02] operations of a property

[2:01:04] housing >> context multiple

[2:01:06] types of oversight including

[2:01:08] financial reviews for staff,

[2:01:09] examine financial statements,

[2:01:11] operating budgets and other

[2:01:12] documentation required to be

[2:01:13] submitted by property owners

[2:01:15] affordability restriction

[2:01:17] monitoring where property meant

[2:01:18] or property managers are

[2:01:19] expected to submit rent rolls

[2:01:21] with rent levels and tenant

[2:01:22] income information to housing

[2:01:24] staff and staff then check

[2:01:26] whether the rents are within

[2:01:27] the allowed rent limits for the

[2:01:28] unit type and may check tenant

[2:01:29] incomes. Lastly, property

[2:01:31] inspections which enable the

[2:01:33] city to monitor the building's

[2:01:34] condition any problems that

[2:01:36] need to be addressed to

[2:01:36] maintain the long term

[2:01:37] viability of the property. We

[2:01:39] had two findings I'm we provide

[2:01:41] alison to talk through those.

[2:01:43] thank you. Our first finding

[2:01:46] was that housing should assess

[2:01:48] the asset management teams

[2:01:49] goals and resources as joe just

[2:01:52] described the asset management

[2:01:53] team's role is to monitor loan

[2:01:55] compliance for the city's

[2:01:56] affordable housing loan

[2:01:58] portfolio. This involves

[2:02:00] verifying that borrowers repay

[2:02:02] city loans, that housing units

[2:02:04] comply with affordability

[2:02:05] restrictions and that

[2:02:07] properties are appropriately

[2:02:08] maintained. We found the team

[2:02:11] has not completed all annual

[2:02:13] property reviews or inspections

[2:02:14] in recent years. According to

[2:02:16] housing, the team has

[2:02:17] historically not been able to

[2:02:19] complete all reviews annually.

[2:02:21] of the more than 200 properties

[2:02:23] in the portfolio vacancies and

[2:02:25] unclear expectation liens have

[2:02:27] hindered the team's ability to

[2:02:29] complete its work. In addition,

[2:02:32] the current software tools may

[2:02:33] not be sufficient to meet the

[2:02:35] goals of the program. Given the

[2:02:36] size and scope of the loan

[2:02:38] portfolio replacing or

[2:02:40] retooling software would help

[2:02:42] the team complete their work

[2:02:44] at the time of the audit.

[2:02:45] housing was developing an

[2:02:46] automated rent roll portal to

[2:02:48] assist with reviews and was

[2:02:50] working on developing standard

[2:02:51] operating procedures that would

[2:02:53] support staff to complete their

[2:02:55] work more consistently. We

[2:02:57] recommend that housing develop

[2:02:58] a program level strategic plan

[2:03:01] to identify the program goals

[2:03:02] and resource needs to

[2:03:04] reconfigure the current

[2:03:05] software or to acquire an asset

[2:03:07] management software platform

[2:03:09] and to update and standardize

[2:03:11] operating procedures and

[2:03:12] training. Our second finding >>

[2:03:16] is that housing should

[2:03:17] strengthen oversight

[2:03:19] of affordability restrictions

[2:03:20] and higher risk properties.

[2:03:22] some properties in the

[2:03:23] affordable housing portfolio do

[2:03:25] not comply with affordability

[2:03:27] restrictions. Have not

[2:03:28] submitted required

[2:03:29] documentation or have repeated

[2:03:31] property violations. We found

[2:03:34] in a limited sample of 878

[2:03:37] units across ten properties

[2:03:39] which represents 4% of the

[2:03:41] total units managed. 110 units

[2:03:44] had tenants with incomes above

[2:03:46] the cap for their unit type.

[2:03:48] that was 13% of the sample

[2:03:51] based on federal standards,

[2:03:52] incomes slightly over the

[2:03:54] limits generally aren't

[2:03:55] considered a problem because we

[2:03:57] don't want to penalize people

[2:03:58] for raising their incomes.

[2:04:00] however, 48 units had tenants

[2:04:03] that earned 140% or more of the

[2:04:06] income cap which was 5% of the

[2:04:08] sample. That income level meant

[2:04:10] that they exceeded the federal

[2:04:12] standard. Another concern is

[2:04:14] the potential for tenant

[2:04:16] incomes to be below

[2:04:17] expectations meaning they fall

[2:04:19] well below the target income

[2:04:21] level for their unit. This can

[2:04:23] leave the tenant overly rent

[2:04:24] burdened and put the property's

[2:04:26] financial stability at risk if

[2:04:27] the rental income is very low.

[2:04:30] we also noted that housing does

[2:04:32] not have a documented

[2:04:33] escalation process to address

[2:04:35] comply or property violations

[2:04:38] despite differences in property

[2:04:39] compliance. The asset

[2:04:40] management teams current

[2:04:42] approach does not differentiate

[2:04:44] financial and affordability

[2:04:45] restriction monitoring based on

[2:04:47] the risk of the property. We

[2:04:49] recommend that housing develop

[2:04:51] policies to address over and

[2:04:52] under income tenants and

[2:04:54] resolve significant or repeated

[2:04:56] property concerns and to

[2:04:58] establish a risk rating system

[2:05:00] to prioritize compliance

[2:05:01] monitoring. So to summarize

[2:05:05] finding one focused on a

[2:05:06] strategic plan to clarify what

[2:05:07] housing role is and the goals

[2:05:09] of the program and that plan

[2:05:10] will help housing create

[2:05:11] structures and processes to

[2:05:13] oversee the portfolio more

[2:05:14] effectively. Finding two is

[2:05:16] about making sure we have

[2:05:17] escalation processes when

[2:05:18] something goes wrong in a

[2:05:19] property whether that's about

[2:05:20] tenant incomes, financial

[2:05:21] concerns or the physical

[2:05:23] condition of the properties. I

[2:05:25] do want to emphasize that this

[2:05:26] is a complex regulatory

[2:05:27] environment with requirements

[2:05:28] and regulations that can come

[2:05:29] from multiple agencies which I

[2:05:30] think eric can speak to as

[2:05:31] well. This along with the scope

[2:05:34] of the portfolio makes

[2:05:36] addressing the issues we have

[2:05:36] identified challenging. However

[2:05:38] although the city can troops

[2:05:39] only a part of the funding it

[2:05:40] is incumbent upon the city to

[2:05:42] have processes that ensure

[2:05:44] these properties are

[2:05:45] well-maintained with adequate

[2:05:46] oversight. This is how we can

[2:05:47] assure the properties continue

[2:05:49] to provide quality affordable

[2:05:50] housing to san jose residents.

[2:05:51] here is to come as you accept

[2:05:53] report before signature or to

[2:05:55] eric for the administration's

[2:05:56] response. Thank >> you joseph

[2:05:58] eric sullivan director

[2:06:00] of housing. I appreciate the

[2:06:01] work of joe and his team in

[2:06:03] acknowledging some of the

[2:06:04] complex positions the housing

[2:06:06] department operates in and

[2:06:07] regarding this portfolio. We

[2:06:09] are not the regulator

[2:06:11] of primary instance. We

[2:06:13] primarily notice other entities

[2:06:16] the state, other funders to

[2:06:19] noncompliance issues and play a

[2:06:21] complex part in ensuring the

[2:06:23] continuing asset management

[2:06:25] of this portfolio. As we're

[2:06:27] seeing in our aggressive

[2:06:29] disposition of addressing very

[2:06:31] distressed assets. So that's

[2:06:33] regarding first community

[2:06:34] housing and we appreciate joe's

[2:06:36] sort of understanding of sort

[2:06:37] of the awkward position that we

[2:06:39] sit in and how we're able to

[2:06:41] move and improve our overall

[2:06:43] efforts at compliance while

[2:06:45] acknowledging some of these

[2:06:47] areas of enforcement are

[2:06:49] outside of our direct

[2:06:50] jurisdiction. The department is

[2:06:53] coming into this position just

[2:06:55] over two years ago has taken a

[2:06:57] lot of work prior to the audit

[2:06:59] including working on us as a

[2:07:00] plan as well as looking at ways

[2:07:02] in which we can better risk

[2:07:03] rate across the 180 or so

[2:07:07] buildings across the asset

[2:07:08] portfolio. And so we're

[2:07:10] continuing to bring that work

[2:07:11] forward this fall as we begin

[2:07:13] to implement these audits we

[2:07:15] accept the findings and I'm

[2:07:17] happy to answer your questions

[2:07:18] . Thank >> you for the

[2:07:21] presentation. Thank you, joe

[2:07:24] allison and eric. Toni, do we

[2:07:26] have any members of the public

[2:07:27] who wish to speak? Yes, america

[2:07:29] come on down followed by brian

[2:07:30] online

[2:07:42] . >> I want to call out the

[2:07:44] city of san jose for violating

[2:07:47] the brown act. You have an

[2:07:48] agenda housing items that need

[2:07:51] to be vetted by the public as

[2:07:53] consent agenda consent agenda

[2:07:56] usually is for routine >>

[2:07:59] spending as well as something

[2:08:01] that has been vetted by

[2:08:03] appointed or elected bodies

[2:08:06] such as in this item it should

[2:08:08] not be in review again probably

[2:08:10] because your committee in

[2:08:12] economics voted for something

[2:08:14] against >> the governments.

[2:08:17] well so now you're putting a

[2:08:18] here and also I want to call it

[2:08:20] out >> that you got to stay on

[2:08:22] this item is the housing

[2:08:23] department loan portfolio audit

[2:08:25] could you please stick to this

[2:08:26] item? It isn't clear to

[2:08:27] everyone I am. It should not

[2:08:29] have been split back in the

[2:08:30] open agenda. Also why is it

[2:08:33] that you guys are lending your

[2:08:34] property taxes >> as loans to

[2:08:37] developers that is against the

[2:08:40] will of your people? Did you

[2:08:42] guys check with your property

[2:08:44] payers tax? >> thank you that

[2:08:47] your time? Brian darby it's

[2:08:55] sorry about getting on there it

[2:08:56] was well written report thank

[2:08:57] you. Back to council all >>

[2:09:02] right coming back to the

[2:09:03] council thank you all start

[2:09:07] with councilmember >>. Thank

[2:09:11] you as always I'd like to thank

[2:09:13] the auditor and his team for

[2:09:15] good report and also for the

[2:09:16] briefings. I always find them

[2:09:18] very, very informative. I can

[2:09:20] ask all my questions and you

[2:09:22] know it's it's very good. So

[2:09:24] thank you for that. I also want

[2:09:26] to thank the housing department

[2:09:27] for answering my questions. I

[2:09:30] did note that some of the there

[2:09:33] were some vacancies during a

[2:09:35] previous time. I was just

[2:09:36] curious if those vacancies have

[2:09:38] been filled and allow you to

[2:09:40] get to some of your target

[2:09:42] completion dates as is

[2:09:44] mentioned in the report >>

[2:09:46] of the two vacancies one has

[2:09:47] already been filled, the other

[2:09:49] were pending an offer to be

[2:09:50] made. Wonderful. Well with >>

[2:09:53] that I'd like to move the the

[2:09:57] item and the report and just

[2:09:59] thank you for your information.

[2:10:02] second >> thank you, councilor

[2:10:05] accomplice >> thank you, mayor.

[2:10:09] I do just want to thank staff

[2:10:10] for this work and for the

[2:10:12] presentation with just one

[2:10:14] question can the city council

[2:10:17] receive an update for when the

[2:10:20] policy for addressing tenants

[2:10:22] that exceed or fall below

[2:10:24] income limits in affordable

[2:10:25] units is developed because as

[2:10:30] some folks may be concerned

[2:10:31] with displacement impacts and

[2:10:33] would like to understand how

[2:10:34] the housing department might

[2:10:35] prevent or mitigate

[2:10:36] displacement of these tenants.

[2:10:38] yes, we can come back and

[2:10:38] report but again I know that

[2:10:40] the housing department even if

[2:10:41] we find those instances

[2:10:43] of noncompliance of above or

[2:10:45] below income, we can't take any

[2:10:46] action. We just give notice to

[2:10:48] the owner or property manager

[2:10:50] and it's on them to then take

[2:10:51] action. So we can't require

[2:10:53] moves, we can't require

[2:10:56] disposition. We can require

[2:10:57] resolution. All we do is check

[2:10:59] and notice this is part of sort

[2:11:01] of the awkward setting that we

[2:11:03] have in the department. >>

[2:11:04] thank you. I think that

[2:11:05] information would be important

[2:11:07] for us to consider future

[2:11:09] policymaking. Thank you and

[2:11:13] great thanks councilmember.

[2:11:15] just want to also thank you for

[2:11:16] the audit. Joe, as always you

[2:11:17] and your team do excellent work

[2:11:19] and I think you have two very

[2:11:20] specific and actionable

[2:11:22] recommendations here that are

[2:11:23] material to the city. So

[2:11:26] there's a great audit and

[2:11:27] appreciate the housing

[2:11:28] department's follow up. Do we

[2:11:31] have any >> other hands not

[2:11:32] seen the other colleagues? So

[2:11:35] toni, let's vote. Motion >>

[2:11:47] passes unanimously with casey

[2:11:48] absent. >> thank you. Thank you

[2:11:52] all. Okay, rhonda, item 7.1

[2:11:54] this is the city's response to

[2:11:56] the santa clara county civil

[2:11:57] grand jury report entitled >>

[2:12:00] san jose animal care center the

[2:12:02] need to strengthen

[2:12:03] transparency, performance and

[2:12:05] trust. We'll start with the

[2:12:08] staff presentation >>

[2:12:34] . >> good afternoon. I'm matt.

[2:12:37] I'm the director of public

[2:12:38] works and with me is monica

[2:12:39] wiley, the deputy director for

[2:12:41] animal care and services. We

[2:12:44] will have a very brief

[2:12:45] presentation to highlight some

[2:12:46] of the findings and or

[2:12:47] recommendations included in the

[2:12:49] civil grand jury report that

[2:12:51] was submitted to us in may.

[2:12:55] first, we'd like to thank the

[2:12:56] civil grand jury for their

[2:12:57] review and investigation and

[2:12:59] report for recommendations for

[2:13:01] improvements at the animal care

[2:13:02] center and our services that we

[2:13:04] provide to the public. We also

[2:13:06] want to thank them for their

[2:13:07] acknowledgment of the progress

[2:13:08] that's been made and the

[2:13:09] commitment that we have to

[2:13:11] improving our services to our

[2:13:13] animals and to the people that

[2:13:14] care for our animals. You'll

[2:13:16] see that there's five findings

[2:13:17] and the way this is structured

[2:13:18] as you know because you did the

[2:13:19] civil grand jury report last

[2:13:21] week for one of them you have

[2:13:22] civil war in the next couple

[2:13:23] of weeks. The there's five

[2:13:27] findings which we have to

[2:13:28] respond if we agree, disagree

[2:13:29] or partially in total and then

[2:13:31] we have recommendations whether

[2:13:32] they're implemented partially

[2:13:33] or when they're going to be

[2:13:34] implemented. So first just a

[2:13:35] quick slide of all the

[2:13:36] findings. We agree with all

[2:13:38] of the findings that they have

[2:13:40] except for one we partially

[2:13:41] disagree and that's because we

[2:13:43] think it's factually different

[2:13:44] that we did not the number

[2:13:47] of animals two taken by rescues

[2:13:50] declined since 2001 they did

[2:13:52] with cats but not with dogs.

[2:13:53] dogs actually increased quite a

[2:13:55] bit since 2021. So digging

[2:14:00] deeper a little bit here on

[2:14:04] finding one they recommended

[2:14:06] the finding was that there was

[2:14:07] a ventilation system error in

[2:14:08] the facility. That's true. It

[2:14:10] was a facility piece that was

[2:14:12] under repair and there was an

[2:14:14] improvement being done at the

[2:14:15] time there were no animals in

[2:14:16] the room. We got our facilities

[2:14:18] folks out there and remediated

[2:14:20] that that next week finding two

[2:14:23] was the animals rescue partners

[2:14:24] declined to that's where we

[2:14:25] disagreed and pardon the

[2:14:27] recommendation is that he needs

[2:14:28] to develop a plan and timeline

[2:14:29] to repair to expand the

[2:14:31] relationship. We have expanded

[2:14:33] relationships. We have more

[2:14:34] relationships last year that

[2:14:35] doesn't mean the animals. So

[2:14:37] the relationship with different

[2:14:38] rescue partners was actually

[2:14:39] at its highest point last year

[2:14:41] than it was in the last five

[2:14:42] years. This is an evergreen

[2:14:45] process. We need to continue to

[2:14:46] work on relationships like

[2:14:47] every relationship some in the

[2:14:49] past we've had relationships

[2:14:52] go away where they weren't

[2:14:53] pleased with working with us

[2:14:54] for a period and then those in

[2:14:56] this last year have returned.

[2:14:58] we have new relationships that

[2:15:00] were added. In fact one of the

[2:15:01] dog rescues pulled more animals

[2:15:04] from us than any species across

[2:15:07] any group in the last five

[2:15:09] years in a single year just

[2:15:10] last year alone finding three

[2:15:14] the current provisions of spay

[2:15:15] neuter is insufficient. We

[2:15:17] agree we should expand public

[2:15:19] to spay neuter either at the

[2:15:21] shelter or to community service

[2:15:22] partners. That's true. We agree

[2:15:24] we have implemented that. We

[2:15:25] have had more surgeries. Each

[2:15:27] of the last three years than

[2:15:28] the preceding year and we need

[2:15:30] to continue to do more and

[2:15:32] staff is committed to

[2:15:33] increasing that and council

[2:15:34] provided us additional

[2:15:36] resources this budget cycle for

[2:15:38] additional spay neuter

[2:15:39] relationships funding funding

[2:15:42] for we have changed some data

[2:15:46] categories and historically not

[2:15:49] consistently noted them. We

[2:15:51] agree that we changed

[2:15:52] categories. We did note them in

[2:15:54] our annual report. One of the

[2:15:56] things that we in a way

[2:15:58] disagreed with what the civil

[2:15:59] grand jury said and pointing to

[2:16:01] what we have in terms of our

[2:16:02] public data and our public

[2:16:03] portals in terms of what the

[2:16:05] actual true information is. For

[2:16:07] example, the city must provide

[2:16:09] accurate, clear complete data

[2:16:10] to the public to assess a

[2:16:11] performance. One of the things

[2:16:14] we've chosen to do is lean

[2:16:16] forward and be very progressive

[2:16:17] about our data going out with

[2:16:19] an open data portal in real

[2:16:20] time. That means as the

[2:16:22] condition of the animals change

[2:16:23] over time we have to change the

[2:16:25] information we have into the

[2:16:26] public. The way I think of this

[2:16:28] in the way staff thinks about

[2:16:30] this is is if a person going

[2:16:32] into the hospital they go in

[2:16:33] one condition and things

[2:16:35] change. They sometimes improve,

[2:16:36] they sometimes decline,

[2:16:38] sometimes they have to go to

[2:16:39] another place before they end

[2:16:40] up going home to a foster

[2:16:42] system or a foster care or

[2:16:44] something like that. So it

[2:16:45] changes quite a bit as we see

[2:16:46] it now in our response back in

[2:16:49] the memo it was I want to think

[2:16:52] that it's clear that our annual

[2:16:54] report, our annual reporting

[2:16:55] numbers are the true audited

[2:16:57] numbers for the animals that we

[2:16:58] served over the period of that

[2:17:00] past year. Any in the

[2:17:03] intermittent time it changes

[2:17:04] quite a bit. So yes we change

[2:17:05] it. We don't indicate every

[2:17:06] single time we change. Whereas

[2:17:08] last fiscal year when we we

[2:17:11] presented our annual report we

[2:17:13] noted that we had to in

[2:17:15] alignment with the city audit

[2:17:17] to align our data practices. We

[2:17:19] had to adjust the data

[2:17:20] categories and the data

[2:17:21] reporting structures and we did

[2:17:23] that for the prior year as

[2:17:24] well. So we had two ways to

[2:17:26] compare apples to apples fiscal

[2:17:28] year over fiscal year. Item

[2:17:30] four be worse as I will not be

[2:17:31] implemented. This is something

[2:17:32] that was at contention during

[2:17:34] our audit and that we came to

[2:17:35] an agreement with the seattle

[2:17:37] city auditor about how we would

[2:17:39] present our ability to show how

[2:17:43] what our capacity is at any

[2:17:44] given time as it's listed in

[2:17:47] the report by the civil grand

[2:17:49] jury. It's extremely tricky to

[2:17:52] say what is our capacity? It's

[2:17:53] not the amount of cages that we

[2:17:55] have. It's not the amount

[2:17:56] of professionals that we have.

[2:17:58] it's it's also the the

[2:18:00] condition of the animals that

[2:18:01] we have. And so it's an

[2:18:02] algorithm how do you get the

[2:18:03] data system to present it? It's

[2:18:06] an incredibly labor intensive

[2:18:08] to make that happen in any

[2:18:09] meaningful way. What we agreed

[2:18:11] to is have a a status a shelter

[2:18:14] update dashboard that shows how

[2:18:15] many animals are in the

[2:18:16] building at any given time and

[2:18:18] that gets presented and there's

[2:18:19] a dashboard for that to say

[2:18:21] that we have because the

[2:18:22] condition at some point the

[2:18:24] number of kennels is 530 but

[2:18:27] that doesn't mean we can care

[2:18:28] for 530 animals responsibly

[2:18:30] at any given time if they're in

[2:18:32] a condition that is severely

[2:18:34] negative. We need a lot more

[2:18:35] staff time to do it or if we

[2:18:37] have a smaller staff staffing

[2:18:40] at any given time we might not

[2:18:41] be able to care for as many

[2:18:42] animals so that get capability

[2:18:44] of conditioning of caring for

[2:18:46] them is can be very tricky to

[2:18:48] get a data system to present

[2:18:49] our ability and then the other

[2:18:53] ones are implemented as we get

[2:18:56] going through each and then the

[2:18:58] last one is the four d the city

[2:19:00] should issue the number

[2:19:03] of animals that were turned

[2:19:04] away. We have been collecting

[2:19:07] information and the question is

[2:19:09] do we have it ready to present

[2:19:10] into a dashboard so the public

[2:19:11] can see how many we turn away

[2:19:13] at any given time. We don't

[2:19:15] have that system built yet. It

[2:19:18] came in this recommendation and

[2:19:19] as it's transitioning over to

[2:19:20] pyrenees well I wanted to give

[2:19:23] staff time some some time to

[2:19:25] figure out how to transition

[2:19:26] the information that they're

[2:19:27] gathering and what's the

[2:19:29] appropriate place or pace to

[2:19:30] report out how many animals

[2:19:32] they turn away that are healthy

[2:19:34] at any given time due to the

[2:19:35] capacity in the building >>

[2:19:39] five there's a trust gap

[2:19:41] between animal care and some

[2:19:44] and yes that's true. I would

[2:19:46] say that's true of almost any

[2:19:47] relationship at times there's

[2:19:48] trust gaps and we continue to

[2:19:50] work on it. We have worked on

[2:19:51] it. We will continue to work on

[2:19:53] it. Monika has brought in our

[2:19:55] community forums and there's

[2:19:56] been there's three cycles that

[2:19:58] have happened. We keep pushing

[2:19:59] on more. They've got more

[2:20:00] scheduled through the fall. It

[2:20:02] is a commitment of animal care

[2:20:04] staff to ensure that we

[2:20:06] continue to work on the

[2:20:07] relationship with the goal

[2:20:08] of having a relationship

[2:20:09] of trust. That takes time. We

[2:20:11] obviously have harmed that

[2:20:13] relationship over time and so

[2:20:14] we need to build that over time

[2:20:15] with confidence. One of the

[2:20:18] things they asked for is a

[2:20:20] public report on the audit

[2:20:21] findings. We believe that's

[2:20:23] implemented because one the

[2:20:24] city order published all of the

[2:20:26] things that we did on all

[2:20:27] of our audit items and we did

[2:20:29] the unprecedented thing. I

[2:20:30] don't think there's any audit

[2:20:31] that has a public web page with

[2:20:32] all of the documents presented

[2:20:34] in one place with all of the

[2:20:35] things that were produced as a

[2:20:36] result of that audit it still

[2:20:38] stands today that will stay up

[2:20:39] for a while. It should stay up

[2:20:40] in perpetuity until we change

[2:20:41] policies and do something

[2:20:43] different. The community

[2:20:45] advisory committee and talking

[2:20:47] with both john cicero here the

[2:20:50] parks rec and rex and

[2:20:52] neighborhood services and

[2:20:53] monica they do want this and so

[2:20:55] this is something they're going

[2:20:55] to build over the fall with a

[2:20:57] commitment of having built up a

[2:20:58] team to have their community

[2:21:00] advisory group. They will have

[2:21:01] that in place before the end

[2:21:03] of the calendar year and then

[2:21:05] public needs assessment. We've

[2:21:06] wanted to do this for many

[2:21:07] years. It just hasn't reached

[2:21:09] to the priority that we need to

[2:21:11] get that achieve. We could get

[2:21:13] that achieved right now we had

[2:21:14] too many other urgent things to

[2:21:15] work on and so we do think this

[2:21:18] is good because if we are

[2:21:19] shooting for more spay and

[2:21:20] neuter or for more services we

[2:21:22] need to really understand what

[2:21:23] that community need is to know

[2:21:25] what goal we're shooting at and

[2:21:27] to define and provide you the

[2:21:28] direction the opportunity to

[2:21:30] say we want san jose to be this

[2:21:32] part of that problem set and so

[2:21:34] that community assessment and

[2:21:36] that survey we have a there's a

[2:21:38] study period to see if we have

[2:21:39] all the right resources and

[2:21:40] tools to do it. If we don't

[2:21:42] have it will come to you in the

[2:21:44] fiscal year for the budget to

[2:21:45] make sure that we get allocated

[2:21:46] resources to pull that off

[2:21:48] again, we like to think so as

[2:21:51] noted in both my report and

[2:21:53] other places, the shelter

[2:21:56] animal care and services has

[2:21:57] transitioned to the parks

[2:21:58] recreation and neighborhood

[2:21:59] services department. We hope

[2:22:01] we've set a foundation from

[2:22:03] which they can continue to

[2:22:04] grow. We appreciate the grand

[2:22:06] jury's recommendations and this

[2:22:07] opportunity to reflect on the

[2:22:09] progress we've made. We welcome

[2:22:10] your questions. >> thanks,

[2:22:12] matt. Monica, appreciate the

[2:22:13] response. Thank you to the

[2:22:14] grand jury for your report >>

[2:22:16] toni, let's go to public

[2:22:17] comment first. Okay? Again, as

[2:22:23] a reminder, speakers must

[2:22:24] comply with the city's code of

[2:22:25] conduct for public meetings.

[2:22:26] please come comments to the

[2:22:28] body limit remarks to the

[2:22:29] agenda item and observe the

[2:22:31] time limit conduct that

[2:22:32] materially disrupts the meeting

[2:22:34] or interferes with others

[2:22:35] ability to participate may

[2:22:36] result in muting or removal as

[2:22:38] authorized by law. I'm going to

[2:22:39] start with the in-person

[2:22:40] speakers why don't you hear

[2:22:42] your name? Come on down first

[2:22:44] person on the microphone

[2:22:45] go ahead and speak the others

[2:22:46] line up behind that person I

[2:22:48] have samuel dana hayes, lynn

[2:22:53] paulson and and lynn bell. >>

[2:22:58] come on down. Hello. My >> name

[2:23:05] is lynn paulson. I spoke to you

[2:23:06] twice in the last year about

[2:23:07] issues when I tried to rescue

[2:23:09] two different dogs from being

[2:23:10] killed at the san jose animal

[2:23:11] care center. I if you plan to

[2:23:13] move >> forward from the grand

[2:23:15] jury report, it's important

[2:23:16] that you increase your

[2:23:17] engagement as the animal care

[2:23:19] center moves to this different

[2:23:20] administrative department. I've

[2:23:22] sent you a letter indicating

[2:23:23] thanks for some actions

[2:23:25] director wiley and the center

[2:23:27] have taken but also listing

[2:23:29] some open issues. Too many cats

[2:23:31] and dogs are being killed in

[2:23:33] the last fiscal year 154 dogs,

[2:23:36] 715 cats and 496 kittens were

[2:23:39] killed. There may be a newly

[2:23:41] documented euthanasia process

[2:23:43] but the detailed criteria have

[2:23:45] not yet been made transparent.

[2:23:47] there's not enough being done

[2:23:48] to stop the incoming volume

[2:23:50] of animals such as the actions

[2:23:51] they referred to. We need to

[2:23:53] increase the spay and neuter

[2:23:54] services. >> there are too many

[2:23:56] cases of retribution towards

[2:23:58] staff or volunteers who've been

[2:24:00] summarily dismissed. Please

[2:24:01] listen to the community. We

[2:24:03] count on your leadership >> to

[2:24:04] address the issues. Thank you

[2:24:06] that your time next speaker

[2:24:09] also come on down save the

[2:24:10] cats. >> good afternoon.

[2:24:16] my name is dana hayes. I am a

[2:24:18] foster tnr volunteer and an

[2:24:20] advocate first van neuter. Last

[2:24:22] week in district six I worked

[2:24:25] on a hoarding situation with 77

[2:24:27] cats and kittens. This is the

[2:24:32] result of unchecked

[2:24:33] reproduction and I appreciate

[2:24:36] the grand jury's work and

[2:24:37] recognizing the challenges

[2:24:38] faced with animal services. But

[2:24:40] the root of many shelter

[2:24:41] problems is the animal

[2:24:43] overpopulation and we need to

[2:24:45] focus on prevention and turn

[2:24:47] off the faucet rather than

[2:24:48] continually mopping up the

[2:24:50] mess. I recognize there is a

[2:24:52] national veterinarian shortage

[2:24:54] however, with two in-house

[2:24:55] surgery suites not being foley

[2:24:57] utilized and ongoing vacancies,

[2:24:59] there may be other factors

[2:25:00] worth examining. I would urge

[2:25:02] the city auditor to review the

[2:25:04] applicant pool recruitment

[2:25:05] efforts and hiring outcomes to

[2:25:07] identify barriers barriers the

[2:25:09] city can address. I also ask

[2:25:12] that the city reconsider their

[2:25:14] policy >> of grant not hiring

[2:25:17] and >> next speaker amy jahn

[2:25:20] come on down >> and america.

[2:25:25] hello, my name is andy shayne.

[2:25:27] I live in hamilton place in

[2:25:28] willow glen. I've been coming

[2:25:29] to these city council meetings

[2:25:31] for the last few years to

[2:25:32] express my concerns regarding

[2:25:33] the san jose animal shelter.

[2:25:35] when are you guys going to

[2:25:36] finally listen to us? I feel

[2:25:39] this there are many problems

[2:25:42] that affect the animals in

[2:25:43] their care. I feel this is

[2:25:44] foremost due to the management

[2:25:45] they're firing two long term

[2:25:47] volunteers because they took

[2:25:48] pictures or videos of the dogs

[2:25:50] to help network them is

[2:25:51] unacceptable. How do you fire a

[2:25:53] volunteer? They're volunteering

[2:25:55] their time to help dogs get

[2:25:56] their forever home. The shelter

[2:25:58] should be appreciative of this.

[2:25:59] I've been a volunteer a dog

[2:26:01] volunteer at the humane society

[2:26:02] of silicon valley. They

[2:26:04] encourage us to take videos and

[2:26:05] pictures because it truly does

[2:26:07] help the animals get a home.

[2:26:10] why did yukon have to use their

[2:26:11] light for being inside a dog?

[2:26:14] he made one mistake and one

[2:26:16] knee reaction by this

[2:26:17] administration caused the dog

[2:26:19] to lose their life. You have a

[2:26:21] lot of money to give to this

[2:26:22] shelter over and over the years

[2:26:24] and nothing is changing. When

[2:26:25] are you going to finally >>

[2:26:26] listen that your time next

[2:26:28] speaker. Amelia >> mccluskey

[2:26:31] come on down. Good afternoon.

[2:26:34] my name is samuel. I'm a

[2:26:35] volunteer at the oasis. I've

[2:26:37] been there for more than a year

[2:26:39] and a half with about 700 hours

[2:26:42] of dog walking and 100 hours

[2:26:44] of driving dogs to be neutered

[2:26:46] and spayed. I know the shuttle

[2:26:48] quite well. I walk daily with

[2:26:51] management. I raise issues with

[2:26:54] them. They're considerate. They

[2:26:55] fix it. Maybe not the same day

[2:26:58] but they fix it. People had

[2:27:03] signed a contract with the

[2:27:06] shelter and right after they

[2:27:08] signed the contract they start

[2:27:09] they started breaking the rules

[2:27:12] and now they find themselves

[2:27:13] out and they're going to have a

[2:27:15] rally. 5:00 out there talking

[2:27:18] about dog on volunteers. So I'm

[2:27:22] here to give a testament. The

[2:27:24] shelter management does not on

[2:27:25] volunteers. They walk with

[2:27:27] volunteers who want to walk

[2:27:28] with them. If they want to

[2:27:30] demonstrate outside. They

[2:27:32] should be out. Thank you. Thank

[2:27:35] you. Next speaker >> I urge you

[2:27:43] not >> to accept the response

[2:27:44] to civil grand jury report.

[2:27:46] after years of advocates

[2:27:47] raising concerns to audit media

[2:27:49] stories and now this report, it

[2:27:51] is clear that you're still not

[2:27:53] listening to us and I'm sure

[2:27:54] some of you're on your phone

[2:27:55] right now not even listening to

[2:27:57] us again. Finding five

[2:27:59] identifies a trust gap between

[2:28:00] the shelter and the community

[2:28:02] and calls for transparency,

[2:28:03] responsiveness and meaningful

[2:28:05] engagement even with critics.

[2:28:07] but look at recommendation for

[2:28:09] the it calls for the city to

[2:28:11] publicly report how many

[2:28:12] animals are turned away. The

[2:28:14] city claims its transparency

[2:28:15] recommendations are

[2:28:16] implemented. And yet says this

[2:28:19] basic information won't be

[2:28:20] posted until april 2020 >>

[2:28:22] seven. How is that

[2:28:24] transparency? The grand jury

[2:28:26] also identified insufficient

[2:28:27] spay neuter capacity and

[2:28:29] declining rescue transfers

[2:28:31] while its budget has grown to

[2:28:33] 17.5 million. Why are animals

[2:28:36] still being set aside for spay

[2:28:38] neuter? Why are there no vets

[2:28:40] on the weekends? Why is medical

[2:28:41] and operation >> still full?

[2:28:44] the next speaker. I am a long

[2:28:50] time tax volunteer. I have

[2:28:51] volunteered there for five

[2:28:52] years and I was one of the

[2:28:54] volunteers who was terminated

[2:28:56] recently. I'm here to speak

[2:28:57] about finding number five the

[2:28:58] civil grand jury report the

[2:29:00] significant trust gap between

[2:29:02] animal care services and the

[2:29:03] community. I have experienced

[2:29:05] that erosion of trust

[2:29:06] firsthand. There is a lack

[2:29:08] of collaboration, transparency

[2:29:09] and accountability. Instead

[2:29:11] of working with volunteers

[2:29:12] toward the shared goal

[2:29:13] of helping animals, the shelter

[2:29:15] is increasingly creating

[2:29:16] barriers. Most concerning lea

[2:29:18] saying >> that saying simply

[2:29:20] that an audit or grand jury

[2:29:22] recommendation has been

[2:29:23] implemented does not mean that

[2:29:25] it's actually being followed.

[2:29:26] we have seen dogs even now even

[2:29:28] today being euthanized who do

[2:29:30] not appear to meet the the

[2:29:32] shelter's own euthanasia

[2:29:34] criteria and volunteers who

[2:29:36] raise these concerns are being

[2:29:38] dismissed. Removing volunteers

[2:29:39] will not remove the underlying

[2:29:41] problems that we bring to

[2:29:42] light. If the city truly wants

[2:29:44] to rebuild trust as tracks need

[2:29:46] to work with the volunteers not

[2:29:48] around them, we need to thank

[2:29:50] you that your time and genuine

[2:29:52] >> collaboration. Next speaker

[2:29:57] I want to know how things

[2:29:58] got so far that a grand jury is

[2:30:00] involved in this. I mean come

[2:30:02] on people. This is governance

[2:30:04] for cities. 101 if you're going

[2:30:06] to take a class on it, you need

[2:30:08] to be able to control the cat

[2:30:09] and dog population without

[2:30:11] having these kind of problems.

[2:30:12] >> I mean these volunteers do

[2:30:15] great work and having too >>

[2:30:17] many cats outside brings down

[2:30:19] the coyotes. Anyone seen a

[2:30:21] coyote rogue roaming around

[2:30:22] your neighborhood in the middle

[2:30:24] of the suburbs? That's why >>

[2:30:26] they got these feral cat

[2:30:27] colonies in there. They come

[2:30:28] down and they eat them sort

[2:30:30] of mountain lions too. I've

[2:30:31] seen them. Believe it or not,

[2:30:33] not too far from where I live.

[2:30:35] so the city needs to get their

[2:30:37] act together, not be so

[2:30:38] nonchalant and try to control

[2:30:40] the cat and dog population. How

[2:30:42] hard could it be? It's not. I

[2:30:44] mean can you imagine this this

[2:30:46] city is running this is like

[2:30:47] mississippi or something. Come

[2:30:49] on people. Get it straight.

[2:30:52] thank you. Your next speaker.

[2:30:57] >> so I have never seen any

[2:31:00] city would have a county civil

[2:31:03] grand jury report. Does that

[2:31:05] mean that you guys were sued?

[2:31:07] do you have dogs that are

[2:31:08] biting people? It is scary. I

[2:31:10] don't think I'm going to come

[2:31:11] and help you guys next time

[2:31:13] even if you guys invite me.

[2:31:15] fellow americans, you guys

[2:31:17] really need to maybe ask your

[2:31:20] city government to stop

[2:31:22] squandering your tax dollars as

[2:31:24] loans to help builders and help

[2:31:27] wealthy real >> estate

[2:31:28] developers. And why is our our

[2:31:31] entire state and especially a

[2:31:34] rich city that is so close to

[2:31:36] silicon valley run on

[2:31:37] volunteers? Only one only one

[2:31:41] answer. You must be communists.

[2:31:43] that's what communist

[2:31:44] government do. You guys >> take

[2:31:47] property you guys take away

[2:31:48] from people and enrich your own

[2:31:50] pockets. And that's why real

[2:31:52] estate sharks has a taste

[2:31:55] because those communist

[2:31:57] government that are corrupt

[2:31:59] they buy cash. Thank you. Next

[2:32:00] speaker. >> yeah, after this

[2:32:05] speaker I'll go to rebecca

[2:32:06] online. Hello. I'm a san jose

[2:32:11] native from district three. I

[2:32:14] would like to thank the

[2:32:14] volunteers and staff whose work

[2:32:16] I imagine can be gratifying,

[2:32:18] heartbreaking and sadly never

[2:32:20] ending. I'm concerned about

[2:32:22] recent news news reports

[2:32:23] regarding the firing of long

[2:32:25] term volunteers for violating

[2:32:26] the questionable rule against

[2:32:28] photography. There is no hipa

[2:32:30] in animal care. As a citizen

[2:32:32] this arbitrary rule makes it

[2:32:34] seem that whoever's in charge

[2:32:35] has something to hide. Our

[2:32:37] animals and volunteers deserve

[2:32:39] better. I ask that the council

[2:32:41] direct that this rule be

[2:32:42] rescinded. Please bring back

[2:32:44] these dedicated volunteers.

[2:32:46] thank you. Thank you, rebecca

[2:32:49] followed by the man rebecca

[2:32:59] davis matthews. All right.

[2:33:01] sorry. We need to start by

[2:33:02] going with sustainable

[2:33:03] shelters. I'm part of a larger

[2:33:05] group of advocates who have

[2:33:06] been coming to these meetings

[2:33:07] for almost four years and

[2:33:08] repeated pleas for change have

[2:33:09] fallen on deaf ears. When it

[2:33:11] comes down to it, trust and

[2:33:12] complacency are figured in the

[2:33:14] grand jury report. Shelter

[2:33:16] management needs to take a hard

[2:33:17] look at rebuilding trust with

[2:33:18] the community. Take a look

[2:33:20] at any found animal related

[2:33:21] posts on social media and you

[2:33:22] will see comments from members

[2:33:23] of the public stating that

[2:33:24] animals should not be taken to

[2:33:26] the shelter because of the many

[2:33:27] adopted cruel dogs silently

[2:33:29] euthanized or put on a final

[2:33:31] because of the many cats

[2:33:32] euthanized behind the scenes or

[2:33:33] listed as final for treatable

[2:33:35] conditions like ringworm.

[2:33:37] complacency current shelter

[2:33:38] management is complacent and

[2:33:40] disbelief that changes have

[2:33:41] been made. There are still many

[2:33:43] gaps in services most notably

[2:33:44] the public spay neuter program

[2:33:46] which currently has 1 to 2 days

[2:33:48] of tnr per week when it should

[2:33:49] be 4 to 5 days of both tnr and

[2:33:51] services for own pets in house.

[2:33:54] with the continued explosion

[2:33:55] of puppies and kittens in our

[2:33:56] area, the time is now to return

[2:33:58] the shelter to its former role

[2:34:00] in supplying a robust >> demand

[2:34:04] followed by brian mann. If

[2:34:14] you're on the phone it star six

[2:34:15] to unmute >> someone. Good

[2:34:20] afternoon. My name is mike

[2:34:21] wagner. I have a fascinating

[2:34:23] observation to share with all

[2:34:24] of you. Over the past four

[2:34:26] years we've had the management

[2:34:27] audit that largely went ignored

[2:34:29] back in 2022 as well as a

[2:34:31] scathing 133 page city audit by

[2:34:33] joe rice and his team. A da's

[2:34:35] office criminal investigation

[2:34:37] in 2024 led by investigate

[2:34:39] owner chrissy durant and now a

[2:34:41] civil grand jury investigation

[2:34:42] in 25 and 26. The city has also

[2:34:45] been sued in santa clara

[2:34:47] superior court in 2026 by an

[2:34:48] animal welfare advocate and a

[2:34:50] former partner of the shelter.

[2:34:51] give it all this. It's shocking

[2:34:54] that the city has not

[2:34:55] terminated a single director

[2:34:56] nor has any director received

[2:34:58] any disciplinary action even

[2:35:00] though over a dozen ethics

[2:35:01] violations complaints have been

[2:35:03] filed with the city manager's

[2:35:04] office. When are people going

[2:35:06] to be held accountable? When

[2:35:08] are people going to be handled,

[2:35:11] held accountable for all

[2:35:12] of these animals suffering and

[2:35:14] dying over the last four years

[2:35:15] >> by brian followed by tina.

[2:35:24] >> I would bring up one thing I

[2:35:29] read through and sent an email

[2:35:31] about it. I've heard the word a

[2:35:33] few times and I've heard it in

[2:35:34] other situations too is

[2:35:36] retaliation that's illegal to

[2:35:39] retaliate against the

[2:35:40] volunteer, to retaliate against

[2:35:42] the citizens to retaliate

[2:35:44] against an employee. Those are

[2:35:46] actionable. The city has not

[2:35:47] done well in lawsuits that have

[2:35:48] done that have been similar to

[2:35:50] that and it that should be a

[2:35:53] critical issue. Firing for

[2:35:56] cause having been a volunteer

[2:35:58] not for the shelter but for

[2:35:59] another organization for making

[2:36:01] bringing up concerns

[2:36:03] retaliation hurts people. You

[2:36:05] know you put your heart and

[2:36:06] soul into something and then it

[2:36:07] just and then you're no longer

[2:36:09] part of anything and it it

[2:36:11] should be dealt with seriously

[2:36:14] and it doesn't seem like it is.

[2:36:16] thank you tina online followed

[2:36:19] by kim in person. Hi, good

[2:36:24] afternoon. This is tina

[2:36:25] murrell. I live in district

[2:36:27] three. I want to say thank you

[2:36:30] guys for your time. I sent you

[2:36:32] some thoughts yesterday via

[2:36:34] email but I wanted to focus on

[2:36:36] one thing in particular which

[2:36:39] is outside of the scope of my

[2:36:41] letter to you. I'd like to urge

[2:36:43] you to please use your

[2:36:44] influence >> as a mayor and

[2:36:47] city council at a higher level

[2:36:49] to help put through some

[2:36:50] policies that will reduce the

[2:36:52] cat population or

[2:36:54] overpopulation. Assembly member

[2:36:56] ash kalra is actively working

[2:36:59] on some bills. He had a great

[2:37:01] bill. It was to allow vet techs

[2:37:04] to be able to spay cats and

[2:37:10] unfortunately it didn't pass

[2:37:11] but he's putting through some

[2:37:12] other ones. Maybe that's a good

[2:37:14] place to start. The other thing

[2:37:16] that I'd like to invite you to

[2:37:18] do is please check out these

[2:37:20] places where you have your

[2:37:22] voting on go and I. Kim was it

[2:37:29] kim yeah. Hi, I'm kim. I just

[2:37:35] got here so didn't get to hear

[2:37:37] everything. I came here because

[2:37:39] I've been watching online all

[2:37:41] about the shelter. I have

[2:37:43] rescued over 100 dogs so I know

[2:37:46] how hard it is to be a

[2:37:47] volunteer. It's so hard. I

[2:37:48] can't imagine these volunteers

[2:37:50] in the shelter watching dogs

[2:37:51] get put down. I really >>

[2:37:54] believe that the volunteers

[2:37:56] need to be looked at. They have

[2:37:57] some great, great >>

[2:37:58] suggestions. I have tried to

[2:38:00] contact you, mayor. I would

[2:38:03] suggest some air to answer your

[2:38:05] phone because you can't get

[2:38:06] through to you. There's less

[2:38:08] air. You want to talk to

[2:38:09] me later? My company does that

[2:38:11] and some of the council people

[2:38:12] too. I've tried to like the

[2:38:14] phone just rings and if we can

[2:38:17] get a consensus of what the

[2:38:19] population is looking at I was

[2:38:21] shocked >> at how much verbiage

[2:38:24] is being talked about council

[2:38:25] people, mayors. I can't imagine

[2:38:28] how hard it is in this

[2:38:29] community with this shelter

[2:38:31] with covid and all the dog

[2:38:33] population. What you're dealing

[2:38:34] with. Thank >> you. That's your

[2:38:35] time. I have sue online here.

[2:38:44] if you leave it you can leave

[2:38:44] it with the clerk. Hi. I just

[2:38:48] wanted to say that one of the

[2:38:50] things I don't understand and

[2:38:52] which I think reflects on

[2:38:53] management somehow and this

[2:38:55] issue of trust I keep hearing

[2:38:57] about is this new volunteer

[2:38:59] agreement that restricts

[2:39:00] volunteers from taking photos

[2:39:02] and videos of animals because

[2:39:05] it really does help the animals

[2:39:06] get adopted which is the whole

[2:39:08] point of the shelter. So I

[2:39:11] don't understand why they won't

[2:39:13] give them permission to do that

[2:39:15] and also the fact that

[2:39:16] volunteers have been retaliated

[2:39:18] against some of them who have

[2:39:21] volunteered at the shelter for

[2:39:22] a long time. They're doing this

[2:39:24] for free for no money and hey,

[2:39:27] you know, it's illegal in the

[2:39:28] workplace. Maybe not for

[2:39:30] volunteers but that just

[2:39:33] doesn't seem right. Thank you.

[2:39:35] >> back to council. Okay. Thank

[2:39:40] you, toni. Thank you to all

[2:39:41] of our public speakers. Before

[2:39:42] I turn to colleagues, I'll just

[2:39:44] say a couple of quick things.

[2:39:45] one, I want to start by really

[2:39:47] thanking the volunteers and

[2:39:50] animal advocates, not just

[2:39:52] those who spoke today but I

[2:39:53] know we are very lucky in

[2:39:55] san jose to have hundreds

[2:39:57] of people who care a lot about

[2:39:59] the care of animals in our

[2:40:00] community and help in a variety

[2:40:02] of ways from walking dogs to

[2:40:04] trapping stray cats and getting

[2:40:06] them spayed or neutered to a

[2:40:08] whole variety of capacity that

[2:40:10] they add just for a little bit

[2:40:12] of context for those following

[2:40:13] along. You go back a few years

[2:40:16] ago coming out of the pandemic

[2:40:18] we were hit with this wave

[2:40:22] of animal releases into the

[2:40:24] community during the pandemic.

[2:40:25] sadly many people rushed out to

[2:40:28] get a pet as they were at home

[2:40:30] and then when they returned to

[2:40:31] work decided it was too much

[2:40:33] trouble and we had a huge

[2:40:34] influx of pets. It also was the

[2:40:38] case at least in my opinion

[2:40:40] that we had been

[2:40:41] under-investing in the shelter

[2:40:42] and staffing and facilities and

[2:40:45] really needed to invest to

[2:40:47] modernize and I'm proud of this

[2:40:49] council over the last three

[2:40:50] years has significantly

[2:40:51] increased the investment nearly

[2:40:53] doubling investment in the

[2:40:55] animal care center just over

[2:40:56] the last three years and adding

[2:40:58] to staffing. It's also worth

[2:41:00] noting we have a new director

[2:41:02] so there's been a leadership

[2:41:03] change and we are in the

[2:41:05] process. We've just moved it

[2:41:07] from within public works to

[2:41:10] under parks recreation and

[2:41:11] neighborhood services. >> a

[2:41:14] couple of years ago I and some

[2:41:17] colleagues and I put forward a

[2:41:18] memo calling for an audit. We

[2:41:20] have a very extensive audit

[2:41:22] with over 30 recommendations

[2:41:24] most of which have been

[2:41:25] implemented. So there is a lot

[2:41:27] of work to do and to the point

[2:41:29] I think you may love trust to

[2:41:30] rebuild that isn't it's going

[2:41:32] to have to be hard earned. It's

[2:41:33] not going to come overnight or

[2:41:35] just be because we say we've

[2:41:37] implemented policies people are

[2:41:38] going to see it and experience

[2:41:40] it for themselves and make

[2:41:41] their own determination. I do.

[2:41:44] I do want to point on what I do

[2:41:46] want to push on one item if we

[2:41:47] could put the slides back up

[2:41:48] and specifically go to finding

[2:41:51] three and recommendation three

[2:41:55] and I forget the slide number

[2:41:56] now but it had to do with our

[2:42:00] spay and neuter capacity. This

[2:42:02] is something I've been very

[2:42:05] focused on in recent years and

[2:42:07] in the in my march budget

[2:42:10] message which council adopted

[2:42:13] we've directed the

[2:42:15] administration to go to five

[2:42:18] days a week and just again I

[2:42:19] think it was said by some folks

[2:42:21] during public comment but this

[2:42:23] is our best opportunity to get

[2:42:24] upstream. I was just actually

[2:42:27] with councilmember cohen up

[2:42:30] at west winds mobile home park

[2:42:32] and happened >> to meet a group

[2:42:34] who again voluntarily are

[2:42:36] trapping stray cats and getting

[2:42:38] them treated and then

[2:42:39] rereleasing them and trying to

[2:42:42] get upstream of this

[2:42:43] proliferation of stray >> cats

[2:42:46] and just in that one colony up

[2:42:48] there, 250 or more cats and

[2:42:50] some folks are lining up

[2:42:52] at five in the morning hoping

[2:42:53] to get a slot. So the thing

[2:42:55] that concerns me and I just I

[2:42:56] want to get a little more

[2:42:57] detail and push on this a

[2:42:58] little bit is >> we put here

[2:43:02] recommendation three that the

[2:43:04] status is implemented which has

[2:43:05] a an air of finality about it

[2:43:08] makes it sound like we're done.

[2:43:10] then I think you said we're not

[2:43:11] >> done or what are our options

[2:43:12] in terms of the responses we

[2:43:15] can give on status because I

[2:43:17] think I think >> we probably

[2:43:18] agree but I just want to get on

[2:43:19] the record here that we have a

[2:43:20] lot of work to do to expand

[2:43:22] that capacity as one of our

[2:43:24] primary prevention strategies

[2:43:26] to relieve all that downstream

[2:43:28] pressure that the staff and

[2:43:29] volunteers are under. So matt

[2:43:31] or monica can you share a

[2:43:32] little more about where we are

[2:43:34] with this? What's next and is

[2:43:36] there any other word we could

[2:43:37] use beyond just implemented

[2:43:39] which makes it sound done >>

[2:43:41] certainly and I did provide it

[2:43:43] in the memo and that's. So this

[2:43:44] was for the slide purposes that

[2:43:46] is just listed as implemented

[2:43:47] and there are contacts provided

[2:43:49] in the notes in the memo and

[2:43:50] which will go back to the civil

[2:43:51] grand jury and monica and clean

[2:43:53] up any additional things that I

[2:43:54] miss. So by implemented it says

[2:43:57] in so the recommendation is to

[2:43:59] increase and expand spay neuter

[2:44:01] surgeries if that's if that's

[2:44:04] the marker then it is implement

[2:44:06] we did increase and expand it

[2:44:08] needs to increase and expand

[2:44:10] more. You provided us new

[2:44:11] resources in july that could

[2:44:14] that will be used to expand

[2:44:15] resources this fiscal year and

[2:44:17] so and we've increased each

[2:44:19] of the last three years double

[2:44:20] digits the prior two years and

[2:44:22] high single digits last year it

[2:44:25] will be reported at the annual

[2:44:26] report what the actual numbers

[2:44:28] are in october so in just a

[2:44:29] couple of months time like six

[2:44:30] weeks time, monica will be

[2:44:33] presenting the annual report

[2:44:34] for the actual figures from

[2:44:36] last year. It was just shy

[2:44:38] of the target that I had sent

[2:44:39] them but they also had a staff

[2:44:41] member was gone for about five

[2:44:42] months of the year due to be on

[2:44:44] leave and there's so we have

[2:44:47] increased even at a decreased

[2:44:50] staff capacity and for the

[2:44:52] first 6 or 7 months of this

[2:44:54] year that last fiscal year

[2:44:56] staff was spending a tremendous

[2:44:57] amount of time implementing the

[2:44:59] 39 automated audit items. They

[2:45:02] were spending a lot of time to

[2:45:03] build both the policies and

[2:45:04] procedures and training and all

[2:45:05] of the things that are part

[2:45:06] of that. Again you see

[2:45:09] detracting a little bit from

[2:45:10] our capacity to perform but it

[2:45:11] was we weren't able to provide

[2:45:12] necessarily as many surgeries

[2:45:14] as we had hoped for because we

[2:45:15] were building all those things

[2:45:16] so that we can have a place to

[2:45:17] grow from and so there is an

[2:45:19] increase but it is not the

[2:45:21] target that we're setting. It

[2:45:21] will be increased higher this

[2:45:23] year and the goal is to get to

[2:45:24] a certain amount and I'll let

[2:45:25] the team in october set what

[2:45:27] their stuff is for this year.

[2:45:29] okay. And when we come back and

[2:45:32] continue with this discussion

[2:45:34] in october, would that be the

[2:45:35] best time for us to understand

[2:45:38] for you to be able to quantify

[2:45:40] how much that increase in the

[2:45:43] spay and neuter >> services

[2:45:45] will be this fiscal year? I

[2:45:46] think I will be interested to

[2:45:47] know from the beginning of the

[2:45:48] fiscal year to the end how much

[2:45:50] increased capacity we will get.

[2:45:52] yes. So I think that's what

[2:45:53] we're hoping is that they'll be

[2:45:54] able to produce. So this will

[2:45:56] be monica's first full fiscal

[2:45:57] year with us as well. She had

[2:45:59] gotten in the audit and get

[2:46:00] everything staff oriented and

[2:46:01] then oriented back to with here

[2:46:04] on us and so they have a vision

[2:46:06] of what they want to be working

[2:46:07] on. They'll be presenting that

[2:46:08] to the committee in october and

[2:46:10] that this is what we achieved

[2:46:11] and this is their vision for

[2:46:12] the fiscal year. >> yeah okay.

[2:46:14] and I focus on that one again

[2:46:16] not because it's the only thing

[2:46:17] we need to do. We know there's

[2:46:18] from the audit many different

[2:46:19] areas we're trying to improve

[2:46:20] but it does feel like one

[2:46:22] of the most strategic ways for

[2:46:24] us to get upstream of the

[2:46:25] challenge create some breathing

[2:46:26] room for staff and be able to

[2:46:27] implement all these other audit

[2:46:29] recommendations and kind

[2:46:30] of improve overall operations.

[2:46:32] I see colleagues want to chime

[2:46:33] in. I'm going to turn to them

[2:46:35] now and I'll start with

[2:46:37] councilmember ortiz. Thank you

[2:46:41] mayor. I just want to start out

[2:46:42] by thanking our animal care and

[2:46:45] services staff. This is

[2:46:46] incredibly difficult work and I

[2:46:48] recognize that many of the

[2:46:49] challenges that we are

[2:46:50] discussing today didn't develop

[2:46:52] overnight staff have been

[2:46:53] working through capacity

[2:46:55] pressures, staffing challenges,

[2:46:57] veterinary shortages and

[2:46:59] increasing demand for services

[2:47:01] whilst still caring for

[2:47:02] thousands of animals every

[2:47:04] year. At the same time I want

[2:47:06] to acknowledge our many animal

[2:47:08] advocates rescue partners,

[2:47:10] volunteers >> and residents who

[2:47:12] have continued to >> push this

[2:47:13] city to >> do better something

[2:47:15] I believe we can do >> the

[2:47:17] grand jury makes it clear that

[2:47:19] there has been progress but it

[2:47:21] also makes it clear that there

[2:47:22] are there is still a lot

[2:47:24] of work that needs to be done

[2:47:25] particularly around transparent

[2:47:27] sea rescue partnership spay and

[2:47:30] neuter services and building

[2:47:32] trust with the community. With

[2:47:34] that I have a few questions.

[2:47:37] staff is committed to >>

[2:47:38] identifying the first cohort of

[2:47:40] the community advisory group by

[2:47:42] the end of the year. How will

[2:47:45] members of the advisory group

[2:47:46] be selected and how are we

[2:47:48] making sure that some of the

[2:47:49] advocates who have been most

[2:47:50] critical of this shelter >>

[2:47:52] have a seat at the table >> so

[2:47:55] I'm going to kick this over to

[2:47:56] monica in just a minute because

[2:47:57] I won't be implementing this

[2:47:58] piece because it'll be after

[2:48:00] my term with x and so they will

[2:48:02] be so they're going to spend

[2:48:04] the next few months evaluating

[2:48:06] relationships and kind

[2:48:07] of figure out what seats need

[2:48:08] to be filled what because they

[2:48:10] they need to be in my mind the

[2:48:14] different cohorts that they

[2:48:15] advocate for or have

[2:48:16] information about or have

[2:48:17] information about us and so

[2:48:19] monica can share what they'll

[2:48:22] be a probably 7 to 10 people on

[2:48:24] that first cohort just to get

[2:48:26] the momentum going and they're

[2:48:28] using their community forums to

[2:48:29] build relationships with people

[2:48:31] and they already have existing

[2:48:32] relationships with community

[2:48:33] members. Monica would you like

[2:48:34] to share? >> >> thank you very

[2:48:40] much and yes, to matt's point,

[2:48:43] we are actually building out

[2:48:45] the framework for this advisory

[2:48:47] group and looking at some other

[2:48:49] organizations that have such a

[2:48:52] group in place to look at their

[2:48:53] baseline, what the application

[2:48:55] process looks like and the

[2:48:57] representation for that

[2:48:59] particular group. So john and I

[2:49:01] have discussed briefly again

[2:49:03] how to get this established by

[2:49:05] the end of this year and are

[2:49:07] working to build out those

[2:49:09] pieces to make it a solid group

[2:49:11] to help us move forward in the

[2:49:12] community. Appreciate your

[2:49:15] response but I don't think

[2:49:16] my question was answered how

[2:49:17] are the individuals who have

[2:49:18] been raising concerns about

[2:49:19] transparency going to be

[2:49:21] included in this process? I

[2:49:25] think depending on how this

[2:49:27] group is formatted, will they

[2:49:29] communicate with the group?

[2:49:31] will that be relayed to the the

[2:49:33] shelter itself? I think we're

[2:49:34] still building that out. So

[2:49:35] definitely transparency is key

[2:49:37] for everything and what does

[2:49:39] that look like and what

[2:49:40] specifically are they looking

[2:49:42] for the transparency on that

[2:49:43] we're already reporting. So as

[2:49:45] far as the group like I said,

[2:49:46] we're building that out so we

[2:49:47] we will have to build that into

[2:49:49] it and get some feedback on how

[2:49:51] to do that from the the group

[2:49:52] >> because perhaps if since

[2:49:55] they'll be in front of the nsc

[2:49:56] in just about six weeks time

[2:49:59] perhaps if they have a slide on

[2:50:00] what they think their initial

[2:50:01] thoughts are on that so they

[2:50:02] can get both your feedback

[2:50:04] feedback and community feedback

[2:50:05] on what their thoughts are,

[2:50:07] they can have a little more

[2:50:08] better form thought for you

[2:50:09] know >> the reason why I

[2:50:10] mentioned this is because I

[2:50:11] believe months ago I had asked

[2:50:14] and the community had asked for

[2:50:15] a community >> advisory group

[2:50:16] and then I believe the

[2:50:17] administration pushed back and

[2:50:18] then we had these town halls

[2:50:19] and then surprise, surprise now

[2:50:22] we're being called upon to do

[2:50:23] this community >> advisory

[2:50:24] group and I would have

[2:50:24] appreciated if we would have

[2:50:26] went forward months ago since I

[2:50:27] asked for it and now we are

[2:50:29] doing it and what I don't want

[2:50:30] to happen is for individuals to

[2:50:32] feel like this community

[2:50:35] advisory group was hand-picked

[2:50:36] by the administration. I want

[2:50:38] to make sure that it is made up

[2:50:39] of also the individuals who are

[2:50:41] raising concerns and I think if

[2:50:43] it's not if we don't include >>

[2:50:46] those type of individuals then

[2:50:47] the integrity of the community

[2:50:49] advisory group is in question.

[2:50:51] I want to be clear about that

[2:50:54] received >> okay. Thank you. >>

[2:50:56] what authority or role will

[2:50:57] that group actually have

[2:50:59] because I want >> to make sure

[2:51:00] as I as I mentioned that we're

[2:51:03] not doing any things for show.

[2:51:06] I want to make sure that

[2:51:07] there's actual concrete

[2:51:08] opportunities for people to

[2:51:10] provide recommendations and

[2:51:11] feedback and then that feedback

[2:51:13] will actually influence policy

[2:51:15] or operations. And so how are

[2:51:17] we going to make sure that that

[2:51:18] happens? So absolutely

[2:51:24] recommendations and feedback

[2:51:26] and then that will be viewed in

[2:51:27] conjunction with the operating

[2:51:30] procedures for the shelter and

[2:51:33] reviewed as such. So this

[2:51:35] particular group would not be

[2:51:38] have power in that regard. It's

[2:51:40] it's an advisory group. Let's

[2:51:42] communicate, let's talk let's

[2:51:44] build a better shelter. Let's

[2:51:46] build a better san jose. Okay

[2:51:49] but what okay they're an

[2:51:50] advisory group they're

[2:51:51] recommendations that are

[2:51:53] provided during the meetings.

[2:51:54] where does that go? Is that

[2:51:55] shared to the council? Is that

[2:51:56] reviewed by nsc? I want to make

[2:51:59] sure that this >> isn't just

[2:52:00] discussions and then there's no

[2:52:02] action items or no follow

[2:52:03] through. >> that's a great

[2:52:06] point and I guess that's what

[2:52:07] we'll build in when we have

[2:52:09] this product for october to

[2:52:10] share. Thank you. That's what I

[2:52:12] was I >> was looking for. We've

[2:52:13] talked about increasing the

[2:52:14] number of rescue partnerships

[2:52:16] but how are we measuring the

[2:52:18] quality of those relationships?

[2:52:19] are we regularly seeking

[2:52:21] feedback from our rescue

[2:52:22] partners on what's working,

[2:52:24] what isn't working and what

[2:52:25] barriers are preventing them

[2:52:27] from taking in more animals? >>

[2:52:29] we currently have a monthly

[2:52:31] rescue partner meeting that's

[2:52:33] been going on for the last

[2:52:34] couple of months with it's with

[2:52:36] our current rescue partners and

[2:52:38] I leave the meeting there's a

[2:52:40] meeting this thursday and there

[2:52:41] will be a survey a satisfaction

[2:52:43] survey to highlight some pain

[2:52:46] points or what's working well

[2:52:47] and assess some of their needs

[2:52:49] and recommendations from those

[2:52:50] groups. And then we're also

[2:52:52] looking at how many new groups

[2:52:53] we've added, how many active

[2:52:55] rescue partners we have because

[2:52:57] there are partners that haven't

[2:52:59] taken any animals for some

[2:53:00] time. And so again building on

[2:53:03] that platform and regular

[2:53:05] communication. >> thank you. I

[2:53:07] appreciate that answer. The

[2:53:09] grand jury also recommended

[2:53:10] quarterly reporting on the

[2:53:11] number of animals turned away

[2:53:13] because >> of capacity staff is

[2:53:15] proposing to collect that

[2:53:16] information reported annually

[2:53:18] rather than bringing in

[2:53:19] quarterly reports to committee.

[2:53:21] I understand that quarterly

[2:53:23] reports is is more work for

[2:53:25] staff but if we're already

[2:53:27] collecting this data is there a

[2:53:28] way to automate or publish more

[2:53:30] frequently without requiring

[2:53:31] staff to prepare a separate

[2:53:32] report each time? I would

[2:53:36] presume that we'd end up

[2:53:37] getting someplace like a

[2:53:38] dashboard like we have now

[2:53:40] which has active transmission

[2:53:41] of information in terms of I

[2:53:45] don't it's a it's an

[2:53:46] interesting single metric

[2:53:49] of what the activity is at the

[2:53:50] shelter. There are so many

[2:53:51] other activities in addition to

[2:53:53] healthy animals if you look

[2:53:55] at the recommendation is

[2:53:56] healthy animals that are turned

[2:53:57] away from the shelter due to

[2:53:58] capacity. It's a very narrow

[2:54:00] thing compared to all of the

[2:54:01] other lives that they touch

[2:54:03] there and so to have that as a

[2:54:05] regular report issued to a

[2:54:07] committee or council seems a

[2:54:08] little bit odd considering

[2:54:09] compared to compared to all

[2:54:10] of the other things and so they

[2:54:12] need to work on gathering it,

[2:54:13] make sure they have the data

[2:54:14] feed and the collection correct

[2:54:15] and then publish probably a

[2:54:17] dashboard or some other kind

[2:54:18] of report likely. But the again

[2:54:20] regulated consistent

[2:54:21] information usually hits at the

[2:54:23] annual report for how many in

[2:54:24] total? So as long as it's being

[2:54:27] reported and shared in a

[2:54:28] dashboard or something like

[2:54:29] that, I think that's fine. The

[2:54:30] report also >> speaks to the

[2:54:32] staffing and capacity

[2:54:33] challenges at the shelter as we

[2:54:35] ask staff to improve

[2:54:37] transparency, expand services

[2:54:38] and strengthen rescue

[2:54:40] partnerships and implement

[2:54:41] these recommendations. Do we

[2:54:42] currently have the staffing in

[2:54:44] resources to realistically do

[2:54:46] all that and if not, what are

[2:54:48] the biggest gaps that the

[2:54:49] council >> should be aware of?

[2:54:55] well I'll go first in the

[2:54:56] monitoring. Yeah. So we have a

[2:55:00] very low vacancy rate at animal

[2:55:02] care and services compared to

[2:55:03] other positions in the city. I

[2:55:05] would say most of the city has

[2:55:06] decreased their vacancy rate

[2:55:07] but when it was in public works

[2:55:10] and pureness has the same

[2:55:11] approach likely is to have a

[2:55:13] very aggressive recruiting

[2:55:16] footprint in terms of filling

[2:55:18] vacancies for that service. I

[2:55:22] think the community survey will

[2:55:23] indicate where the biggest gaps

[2:55:25] are compared to what we

[2:55:25] currently have in terms

[2:55:27] of service delivery in terms

[2:55:29] of what the what the community

[2:55:30] needs and then with council we

[2:55:34] can define what is the role

[2:55:36] of san jose's animal shelter in

[2:55:38] filling that role that need.

[2:55:40] and so I think it's a little

[2:55:41] premature to say what the

[2:55:42] biggest gap is some of the

[2:55:43] hardest things to recruit I can

[2:55:45] talk to that registered vet

[2:55:47] techs and veterinarians are the

[2:55:48] two hardest classifications to

[2:55:50] recruit. We're always

[2:55:51] recruiting for animal care

[2:55:52] attendants because it's a very

[2:55:53] transient class because they're

[2:55:55] very new workers in the work

[2:55:56] environment and so they find

[2:55:58] out that the job is not for

[2:55:59] them and they move on or and so

[2:56:01] we have a lot of movement

[2:56:02] there. But the hardest to

[2:56:03] recruit still remains

[2:56:04] veterinarians, even part time

[2:56:06] veterinarians we've been

[2:56:07] recruiting for those endlessly

[2:56:08] seeking and interviewing

[2:56:10] monthly or every other month

[2:56:11] new vet to try to get through.

[2:56:13] we've tried multiple things and

[2:56:14] they're going to continue to

[2:56:15] try multiple things to get

[2:56:16] that. All right. I might

[2:56:18] my light is blinking so it's

[2:56:20] my last question on >> spay and

[2:56:21] neuter services council has

[2:56:23] already approved additional

[2:56:24] funding to expand capacity. Can

[2:56:27] you talk about what we can

[2:56:27] expect to >> see in terms

[2:56:29] of expanded spay and neuter

[2:56:30] services over the next few

[2:56:31] months? And as we increase that

[2:56:33] capacity, do we have a sense

[2:56:34] of what >> level of service we

[2:56:35] ultimately need to reach to

[2:56:37] meaningfully reduce the number

[2:56:39] of animals entering our

[2:56:40] shelter? Well, monica gets the

[2:56:41] specifics. I think I answered

[2:56:42] that in part to the mayor not

[2:56:44] to try to punt off the question

[2:56:45] is we do believe that increase

[2:56:49] spay neuter is a is a need for

[2:56:50] the community and the shelter

[2:56:52] is committed to doing more. And

[2:56:54] so in october when they're in

[2:56:57] front of you at a.s. They'll

[2:56:58] presenting this is what we

[2:56:59] achieved and this is the target

[2:57:00] and this is what we expect in

[2:57:01] terms of growth. This is what

[2:57:03] we're targeting for additional

[2:57:04] resources. I know they're

[2:57:05] soliciting additional vendors

[2:57:07] to help support in that because

[2:57:08] that's specifically what the

[2:57:09] budget was targeted for and so

[2:57:11] we're going to see what that

[2:57:13] number gets us, what that

[2:57:14] dollar amount that was

[2:57:14] provided, how many more spay

[2:57:16] neuter surgeries can be

[2:57:17] provided with that and that'll

[2:57:18] get reported to the committee

[2:57:19] in october. Thank you.

[2:57:21] appreciate the presentation.

[2:57:22] look forward to my colleagues

[2:57:23] questions. Councilmember mayor

[2:57:27] if I would like to address a

[2:57:28] little bit of the community

[2:57:29] engagement questions that you

[2:57:30] had and clearly we're still

[2:57:32] working out a lot of the

[2:57:32] details. Right. So we're not

[2:57:34] prepared just right today to

[2:57:36] kind of give you all the the

[2:57:37] logistical but I do want to

[2:57:39] address a dynamic that is it's

[2:57:42] easy to talk about and harder

[2:57:44] to do. You know, when you know,

[2:57:46] I want to I want to be >> real

[2:57:48] clear that staff is is

[2:57:50] completely open to critical

[2:57:52] opinions, perspectives, ideas,

[2:57:54] even contrarian ideas. Steph is

[2:57:56] definitely open to that. Where

[2:57:59] it's >> problematic is when

[2:58:02] some of those perspectives or

[2:58:03] the advice is in all comes from

[2:58:05] an all or nothing approach or

[2:58:06] comes from a we want you to

[2:58:08] hire this person and fire this

[2:58:10] person and where where some

[2:58:11] of the lines get blurred. And

[2:58:13] so I just want to kind of, you

[2:58:16] know, put the caveat out there

[2:58:17] that as we convene this group

[2:58:19] we need to find people that

[2:58:20] understand that transparency

[2:58:22] goes two ways, communication

[2:58:24] goes two ways trust is built

[2:58:27] two ways and unless people

[2:58:30] including us, the city are

[2:58:31] willing to kind of come to this

[2:58:33] work in a way in a manner where

[2:58:35] we're putting the best

[2:58:36] interests of the animals under

[2:58:38] our care first then I think it

[2:58:40] will be successful otherwise

[2:58:41] we'll end up in this continual

[2:58:43] stalemate. I will say that

[2:58:45] there are a lot of other

[2:58:47] perspectives that you won't

[2:58:48] hear today or you won't hear

[2:58:49] publicly because it's very

[2:58:50] difficult for someone to come

[2:58:51] up and say you know what, we

[2:58:53] support staff in these

[2:58:54] different efforts. But anyway,

[2:58:56] I just wanted to highlight the

[2:58:57] obvious because that is a

[2:58:59] dynamic that we rarely talk

[2:59:01] about but it plays out on a

[2:59:02] daily basis and is very tough

[2:59:05] on staff to to work in that

[2:59:07] environment where it's all or

[2:59:08] nothing. There's a lot of gray

[2:59:10] area here that we've got to

[2:59:11] navigate and so I just wanted

[2:59:12] to kind of just put that out

[2:59:13] there because this will be

[2:59:15] tough work. No, I totally

[2:59:17] understand that angel and I

[2:59:19] think that is fair. I just want

[2:59:22] to make sure that as we do this

[2:59:24] community advisory group we do

[2:59:27] so by choosing individuals from

[2:59:29] all different sides of the

[2:59:30] aisle and all different

[2:59:32] perspectives >> because you

[2:59:34] know then there will be

[2:59:35] questions about the integrity

[2:59:37] of the committee and you know,

[2:59:38] to be brutally honest I have to

[2:59:39] work with people who don't

[2:59:41] agree with my votes, who don't

[2:59:42] agree with what I've done as a

[2:59:44] council member. That's called

[2:59:45] being a public servant. And so

[2:59:47] unfortunately we we have to do

[2:59:49] hard things. And you know, you

[2:59:50] mentioned, you know, people

[2:59:52] talking >> about hire and fire.

[2:59:54] this has been >> going on for

[2:59:55] years. You know this was going

[2:59:57] on in my council office.

[2:59:59] somebody would have recalled

[3:00:00] me somebody or I wouldn't have

[3:00:01] got elected. And so there is a

[3:00:03] question about and I know

[3:00:04] monica you're new but to

[3:00:06] me personally >> there is a

[3:00:07] question about how can we

[3:00:08] continue to be in the news, how

[3:00:09] can we continue to have

[3:00:10] problems and nobody has lost

[3:00:12] their job that that is that is

[3:00:14] a concern for me and I've

[3:00:15] personally mentioned that to

[3:00:16] matt. Thank you. Thanks,

[3:00:20] councilmember >>. Appreciate

[3:00:20] your good questions and

[3:00:22] advocacy. Let me turn now to to

[3:00:24] one >> thank >> you mayor.

[3:00:29] thank you to the speakers and

[3:00:31] the volunteer hours and the

[3:00:33] rescue partner that come out

[3:00:35] and address your concern. I'd

[3:00:40] like to thank the staff for the

[3:00:41] report and the work to have

[3:00:43] gone through the audits and we

[3:00:46] revise and hopefully we can

[3:00:48] find a better solution and I

[3:00:51] know that sometimes that

[3:00:53] solution may not meet the

[3:00:56] perception or understand

[3:00:57] of other but we'll do our best.

[3:01:00] but in november 2020 for

[3:01:02] my office along with

[3:01:04] councilmember combet,

[3:01:06] councilmember ortiz and the

[3:01:07] mayor brought forth a memo

[3:01:09] regarding you know, the

[3:01:11] san jose animal care services

[3:01:13] audit and those audit was >>

[3:01:15] very clear on a lot of issues

[3:01:18] that we need to work on and to

[3:01:20] now >> I believe how many those

[3:01:23] >> audits recommendation >>

[3:01:25] have we completed all of them.

[3:01:27] all of them okay that's that's

[3:01:31] thank you for doing that and

[3:01:33] even then we still have other

[3:01:34] work to do. And >> in that memo

[3:01:38] that we put out in 2000 2424 we

[3:01:42] call for a work plan to expand

[3:01:44] the low cost space and neuters

[3:01:46] and so on and I understand that

[3:01:48] you're working with milpitas as

[3:01:50] well as private vet to do those

[3:01:55] spaces and neuter is is that

[3:01:58] correct? We are contracted with

[3:02:01] the city of milpitas to provide

[3:02:02] them sheltering and animal

[3:02:04] control services for the city.

[3:02:07] at times we have we do have a

[3:02:08] contract with a organization

[3:02:10] humane society of silicon

[3:02:11] valley in milpitas and we have

[3:02:14] contract we are we can have

[3:02:15] animals had certain given

[3:02:18] surgery there at that location.

[3:02:21] they have done surgeries at our

[3:02:23] location using our facility but

[3:02:26] we are not this is not for the

[3:02:28] city in general but okay have

[3:02:32] you prioritize the the rescue

[3:02:37] partner or identified certain

[3:02:40] particular rescue partner group

[3:02:42] that we could collaborate and

[3:02:45] partner with to to reduce that

[3:02:47] amount of you know, the stray

[3:02:50] cats and dogs if you will? I'll

[3:02:55] start monica can clean it up

[3:02:56] and she'll get it right and

[3:02:57] homeless we I believe we had

[3:03:00] over the highest record

[3:03:02] of animal partnerships rescue

[3:03:04] partnerships last year than we

[3:03:05] had in year four and again I'll

[3:03:07] say one of our dog rescues

[3:03:09] rescued more dogs last year

[3:03:11] than any species in the last

[3:03:12] five years and that was a new

[3:03:14] relationship that was formed in

[3:03:15] the last two years. And so they

[3:03:18] had almost 400 animals that

[3:03:20] were rescued by that one

[3:03:21] organization last year and they

[3:03:23] continue to seek more. They

[3:03:24] continue to do better. They

[3:03:26] continue to build on those

[3:03:27] relationships on all species,

[3:03:28] both cats and dogs and it is a

[3:03:31] continued relationship building

[3:03:33] effort that they're working on.

[3:03:38] I was just going to say as I'm

[3:03:39] poring over the data for last

[3:03:41] year, I do believe the rescue

[3:03:44] numbers were up almost 500 last

[3:03:47] fiscal year over the year

[3:03:48] prior. So again continuing to

[3:03:50] build those relationships.

[3:03:53] thank >> you. And I know

[3:03:55] there's a lot of been changes

[3:03:56] with the strikes and I know

[3:03:59] that we're under you guys are

[3:04:00] underneath pureness but there's

[3:04:04] an ongoing issues about

[3:04:07] transparency. How >> do you

[3:04:12] know the the perception out

[3:04:13] there that we're not doing

[3:04:15] enough? How do we get our

[3:04:17] partnership together including

[3:04:19] the public to volunteer to have

[3:04:23] a forum where it can be

[3:04:25] publicized with action item an

[3:04:29] implementation of those action

[3:04:31] item and what is the end result

[3:04:33] ? Couple of things there. I do

[3:04:40] believe recommendation in one

[3:04:42] of the fives were the doing a

[3:04:44] community survey of really very

[3:04:47] clearly understanding what the

[3:04:49] problem set is so that it's a

[3:04:51] measurable target instead

[3:04:53] of just more. Many times we

[3:04:55] agree that more things need to

[3:04:56] be done in particular areas and

[3:04:58] specific areas but that you

[3:05:00] need to do more of this what

[3:05:01] are we shooting at and then

[3:05:03] because we need to be able to

[3:05:04] provide you this is the gap

[3:05:06] between what the community

[3:05:07] needs are and what we're able

[3:05:08] to do with our current

[3:05:09] resources. So you have the

[3:05:11] choices to influence whether

[3:05:13] there's a policy need there or

[3:05:15] augmentation in terms

[3:05:16] of resources or if we're

[3:05:17] hitting the target. I we've

[3:05:19] thought this for years but we

[3:05:20] had so many other things to

[3:05:21] work on that were more urgent.

[3:05:23] but now we're at this place,

[3:05:24] we're studying that and making

[3:05:26] sure we understand what the

[3:05:27] community needs in very

[3:05:29] particular and detailed ways

[3:05:30] across all these different

[3:05:32] streams of service is very

[3:05:33] important and it's timely. >>

[3:05:36] thank you. I know the we offer

[3:05:40] euthanized service to the the

[3:05:43] owner or the family of the pet

[3:05:45] cats or dogs. We I know that we

[3:05:52] don't allow family members to

[3:05:54] be in there but other occurs

[3:05:56] does how can we change the

[3:05:59] process to allow grieving

[3:06:04] family members to hold their

[3:06:05] pets and you know, say goodbye?

[3:06:09] well, there you know, with the

[3:06:10] service that we have I think

[3:06:15] that would be something we

[3:06:16] would need to look at staffing

[3:06:18] capacity because it does

[3:06:20] require more staffing for that.

[3:06:23] and so if that's something that

[3:06:24] we need to put on the horizon

[3:06:26] for down the road, absolutely.

[3:06:28] but it does require a different

[3:06:29] level of staffing to

[3:06:31] accommodate that sort

[3:06:33] of feature in a shelter and

[3:06:35] coming from a shelter where we

[3:06:37] did provide that it does take

[3:06:38] more staffing and support in

[3:06:40] that regard. >> all right. Well

[3:06:42] thank you for looking into

[3:06:43] that. And the last question I

[3:06:45] have is how many volunteers can

[3:06:48] we accept and how many

[3:06:49] volunteers do we have now >>

[3:06:53] the last count I have was 300

[3:06:55] active volunteers not including

[3:06:58] fosters and we definitely want

[3:07:01] to bump up that number. We have

[3:07:03] volunteer orientation this

[3:07:06] saturday and they're done in

[3:07:07] person now so we do invite

[3:07:09] folks to come down, attend

[3:07:11] volunteer one on one general

[3:07:12] orientation and I'd love to see

[3:07:14] that number grow pretty

[3:07:16] dramatically to get up there to

[3:07:19] help with the animals and serve

[3:07:21] the community better. >> thank

[3:07:23] you very much. And with that I

[3:07:25] move to accept the report. >>

[3:07:28] thanks councilmember. Okay,

[3:07:31] we're going to kill some. Okay

[3:07:33] . Thank you, mayor. Thank you,

[3:07:38] monica, matt and angel all for

[3:07:41] the report today. I think this

[3:07:44] is sort of a jason to council

[3:07:47] member or tease and I think

[3:07:48] maybe councilmember doogan just

[3:07:51] sort of picked up on it with

[3:07:52] you. Monica, you know the

[3:07:55] volunteer piece, right? We've

[3:07:57] heard some mixed commentary

[3:07:59] from even our volunteers that

[3:08:01] were here today as a former

[3:08:05] executive director of an

[3:08:06] organization that could not

[3:08:08] have survived without

[3:08:09] volunteers and served on boards

[3:08:12] with very similar

[3:08:13] organizations. I'm curious

[3:08:16] whether we're staffed for that

[3:08:20] kind of management

[3:08:21] of volunteers and I apologize I

[3:08:23] didn't ask this question before

[3:08:26] today but can you talk about

[3:08:28] you know, how we do that

[3:08:30] in-house in terms of, you know,

[3:08:33] volunteers oftentimes, you

[3:08:35] know, they want to be treated

[3:08:36] like employees in many cases

[3:08:38] they want responsibilities and

[3:08:41] therefore they want input and

[3:08:43] that requires, you know,

[3:08:45] management of the volunteer

[3:08:47] program. Do we have that set up

[3:08:49] at the shelter today or is that

[3:08:51] something you're consider green

[3:08:53] >> at this time with the number

[3:08:58] of volunteers we currently

[3:08:59] have, we are staffed for that

[3:09:02] capability. We are reallocating

[3:09:07] volunteers to >> their

[3:09:10] coordinators. For example, if

[3:09:11] you're a dog volunteer once

[3:09:14] you're onboarded with the

[3:09:16] volunteer coordinator and that

[3:09:17] handles the administration

[3:09:19] of the volunteer program then

[3:09:20] you go with the dog coordinator

[3:09:22] team or you're with the dog

[3:09:23] team. So we have reallocated

[3:09:26] that resource so it just does

[3:09:27] not fall under one individual

[3:09:29] the volunteer coordinator and

[3:09:31] the same goes for the cat team

[3:09:33] or the smalls team and those

[3:09:35] are the main three teams but

[3:09:37] the other training teams again

[3:09:39] they're with coordinators in

[3:09:40] that unit in the shelter

[3:09:42] operation so they can have more

[3:09:44] support and work more

[3:09:46] cohesively as a as a unit so

[3:09:49] all dogs and cats have their

[3:09:51] own volunteers and staff

[3:09:52] members. So >>

[3:09:54] councilmember ortiz, I don't

[3:09:55] know if you were sort

[3:09:55] of formally requesting them to

[3:09:58] kind of report out to you on

[3:10:00] the you know, the sort of the

[3:10:03] advocacy group that you were

[3:10:05] talking about. But if it if you

[3:10:07] were us and and I'm not on the

[3:10:10] committee see I'd like to sort

[3:10:14] of hear the next step on the

[3:10:16] volunteer piece. I just think

[3:10:18] it's one of those things that

[3:10:19] organizations overlook when

[3:10:23] when staff is there voluntarily

[3:10:25] I.e. Free sometimes we lose

[3:10:27] sight of the fact that they

[3:10:28] still need to be heard managed

[3:10:31] and you know, rewarded for the

[3:10:34] work they're doing and not all

[3:10:36] volunteers are created equally.

[3:10:38] most are not going to want to

[3:10:39] be on an advocacy committee.

[3:10:41] many people want to come walk a

[3:10:42] dog you know, see other

[3:10:45] advocates or excuse me other

[3:10:47] volunteers and move on. But and

[3:10:49] so for those I think we need to

[3:10:51] make sure we've got the support

[3:10:52] of that part of the system

[3:10:54] down. So I'd be interested in

[3:10:56] kind of hearing that next step.

[3:10:58] if >> I could just add one

[3:10:59] thing. One of the things that

[3:11:01] made monica stand out in the

[3:11:03] recruitment of her for this

[3:11:04] role was her again not saying

[3:11:07] exactly what happened in the

[3:11:08] interview but it was just her

[3:11:09] advocacy for the importance

[3:11:11] of solving problems with staff

[3:11:13] and volunteers. And so it was

[3:11:16] really this that you have to

[3:11:17] apply that volunteer muscle as

[3:11:18] well as the staff also by

[3:11:20] themselves ourselves

[3:11:21] at shelters we cannot do it.

[3:11:23] and so that's where that

[3:11:24] advocacy for volunteer is being

[3:11:26] a critical part of that is

[3:11:28] right on point and right

[3:11:29] at monica's ellie thanks >>

[3:11:31] matt. I do want to just take a

[3:11:32] moment and recognize x we had a

[3:11:36] very difficult situation in our

[3:11:38] district with a very difficult

[3:11:43] owner of let's say a lot

[3:11:45] of animals and you know, I

[3:11:47] didn't really realize the

[3:11:48] extent of the services and you

[3:11:50] know the work you're doing out

[3:11:52] of the shelter and I just want

[3:11:53] to recognize the really good

[3:11:55] work of asis in that regard. So

[3:11:57] thank >> you. Yeah, I'd just

[3:11:58] like to say that the work that

[3:11:59] we have to do in the community

[3:12:00] and the animal control piece

[3:12:02] the public safety matters is

[3:12:04] of extreme importance and with

[3:12:06] our partners across the

[3:12:07] organization and housing npr

[3:12:09] west to both serve the people

[3:12:12] who are unhoused or under

[3:12:13] housed and their animals and

[3:12:16] with pureness in their beautify

[3:12:18] team when we have to do

[3:12:20] abatements we all do these

[3:12:21] things hand in glove and it

[3:12:23] really is a critical part and

[3:12:24] our field services are critical

[3:12:25] to that public safety mix and

[3:12:27] we appreciate the outlook for

[3:12:28] that. >> thank you. Thanks

[3:12:32] councilmember. Let's go to

[3:12:32] councilor condo's thank you

[3:12:35] mayor know my appreciation matt

[3:12:36] and monica for your report as

[3:12:38] well as other advocates who

[3:12:39] came out to speak on this item.

[3:12:41] you know, I know the mayor

[3:12:42] already touched on the tnr

[3:12:44] program but I did want to echo

[3:12:46] that as as a member of a.c. You

[3:12:49] know, I do look forward to

[3:12:50] ensuring the ramp up numbers

[3:12:51] and especially what we heard

[3:12:53] from folks is we're not

[3:12:54] utilizing all the slots that

[3:12:56] that we that we can to make

[3:12:58] sure that we're filling that

[3:12:59] need in our community. So I'll

[3:13:02] wait for that october report

[3:13:03] and and make sure that we're

[3:13:06] we're leaning in on that and

[3:13:07] then you know, I also wanted to

[3:13:09] bold and underline closing that

[3:13:11] quote unquote trust gap between

[3:13:15] as jay as jax and our advocacy

[3:13:17] advocate and yes, it's going to

[3:13:19] be >> going along with the nsc

[3:13:23] report that was mentioned in

[3:13:25] the audit in october but also

[3:13:27] the relationships and

[3:13:28] communication that goes beyond

[3:13:30] just a verbal report

[3:13:32] establishing what we did. You

[3:13:34] know, some of the some of those

[3:13:35] relationships extend beyond

[3:13:37] just here's here's the bare

[3:13:38] minimum. And I think, you know

[3:13:40] I'm angel thank you deputy city

[3:13:43] manager angel >> for for

[3:13:44] touching on on that especially

[3:13:46] the comments as it relates to

[3:13:47] that pressure dynamic and

[3:13:49] working with folks who you know

[3:13:51] are passionate but you know are

[3:13:52] critical and I think to

[3:13:54] councilmember ortiz and

[3:13:56] mulcahy's point I think that's

[3:13:57] that's part of it and look

[3:13:59] forward to keeping abreast

[3:14:00] of that as well and I know the

[3:14:02] animal control piece is

[3:14:04] something that we've we've

[3:14:05] heard and this this report

[3:14:08] doesn't explicitly call that

[3:14:09] out but we have I have heard

[3:14:11] from from from residents on

[3:14:12] that process and specifically

[3:14:14] with the transparency piece on

[3:14:16] when we have an incident with

[3:14:17] animal control and the

[3:14:18] communication with our

[3:14:19] residents. But I'll wait for

[3:14:20] that october report to to to

[3:14:23] ask specific questions on that

[3:14:24] because I wanted to get my keep

[3:14:25] my comments more tailored to

[3:14:26] the to the civil grand jury

[3:14:27] report. Thank you. >> thanks,

[3:14:31] councilmember. Last call for

[3:14:32] colleagues who want to chime in

[3:14:33] on this item. Okay. We have a

[3:14:35] motion from councilor dwan I

[3:14:37] believe toni let's vote. Are

[3:14:48] you seeing anything on your

[3:14:48] screens? Yes. Okay. And I see

[3:14:52] unanimous 1104 okay. Yeah. It's

[3:14:54] >> not working on my screen.

[3:14:55] I'll refresh but >> I see an 11

[3:14:57] a unanimous vote to adopt the

[3:14:59] response to the civil grand

[3:15:00] jury report. Thank you. >>

[3:15:02] thanks. Okay. Thank you, matt.

[3:15:07] monica so we're now on to item

[3:15:11] 10.2. This is the

[3:15:13] administrative hearing on the

[3:15:14] appeal of the environmental

[3:15:16] determination and site

[3:15:17] development permit for certain

[3:15:19] real property located at 1295

[3:15:21] kirchner avenue and we do have

[3:15:23] a staff presentation so once

[3:15:25] staff is ready you may proceed

[3:15:27] . >> and a reminder for those

[3:15:31] who wish to speak on the next

[3:15:33] item comment cards can be

[3:15:35] submitted at the top or bottom

[3:15:36] of the stairs here and just

[3:15:38] indicate your name and the item

[3:15:40] you wish to speak on. Thank

[3:15:41] you. >> hello. Good afternoon

[3:15:44] again. We're back with the same

[3:15:45] team to my right director chris

[3:15:47] burden or pdc I'm gonna send

[3:15:50] you deputy director of planning

[3:15:52] and to my left to have david

[3:15:53] keon, our principal planner

[3:15:55] with the environmental review

[3:15:56] team and john to division

[3:15:58] manager over the development

[3:15:59] services team. So the item

[3:16:01] before you today is the

[3:16:03] environmental and permit appeal

[3:16:05] of the director's decision on

[3:16:06] the site development permit and

[3:16:08] infill exemption for a

[3:16:10] residential project at 1295

[3:16:12] cotner avenue. The site is a.65

[3:16:17] gross acre site designated a

[3:16:19] residential neighborhood in the

[3:16:21] general plan and with the

[3:16:23] zoning of single family

[3:16:24] residence the project utilized

[3:16:26] state density bonus law to

[3:16:28] propose 12 units at the site by

[3:16:32] demolishing an existing single

[3:16:33] family home and removing 24

[3:16:36] trees that are proposed to be

[3:16:38] replaced. The site development

[3:16:40] sorry the state density bonus

[3:16:42] law application provides two

[3:16:44] affordable units one at the

[3:16:46] very low income which is 50 to

[3:16:48] 80% area median income levels

[3:16:51] and then one at the moderate

[3:16:53] income level which is 80 to

[3:16:54] 120% of the area median income.

[3:16:58] the project also requests

[3:16:59] avesta ing tentative map for a

[3:17:01] subdivision of the one lot the

[3:17:03] .65 acre lot into ten

[3:17:06] residential lots and one common

[3:17:08] area for a private street with

[3:17:10] access to individual garages.

[3:17:15] so the project was reviewed

[3:17:16] reviewed for consistency with

[3:17:18] the general plan does the

[3:17:20] municipal code are citywide

[3:17:22] designs standards and

[3:17:23] guidelines our public outreach

[3:17:25] policy the california

[3:17:27] environmental quality act as

[3:17:29] well as under a state density

[3:17:30] bonus law. The environmental

[3:17:34] review included a class 32

[3:17:36] infill exemption in accordance

[3:17:39] with the state california

[3:17:41] environmental quality act

[3:17:43] because the project was found

[3:17:45] to be consistent with the

[3:17:46] general plan and zoning and it

[3:17:49] develops and urban in lot which

[3:17:51] does not have any suitable

[3:17:52] habitat nor does it generate

[3:17:56] significant traffic noise

[3:17:58] air quality or water quality

[3:17:59] impacts. Existing utilities and

[3:18:02] other public services are

[3:18:03] available to serve the site and

[3:18:06] no impacts to historic

[3:18:07] resources were found. Nor was

[3:18:09] the site identified as a

[3:18:11] hazardous waste site. The

[3:18:14] director's hearing occurred on

[3:18:15] march 25th and several members

[3:18:19] of the public spoke on this

[3:18:20] item specifically there were

[3:18:22] concerns around traffic and

[3:18:23] safety especially during school

[3:18:26] drop off and pickup times the

[3:18:28] height of the project compared

[3:18:29] to nearby residences,

[3:18:31] construction noise and dust

[3:18:32] waivers from existing city

[3:18:34] standards in compatibility with

[3:18:36] surrounding uses and potential

[3:18:38] negative impacts on property

[3:18:40] values. There was also one

[3:18:42] supporter for the project who

[3:18:44] noted that it would provide

[3:18:46] housing opportunity in this

[3:18:47] area. The hearing officer

[3:18:49] approved the proposed site

[3:18:50] development permit and the

[3:18:51] infill exemption at that

[3:18:53] hearing which was subsequently

[3:18:55] appealed on march 29th and

[3:18:57] april 13th. Since these appeals

[3:19:00] included an appeal of the

[3:19:02] environmental review, these are

[3:19:03] being considered by the city

[3:19:05] council de novo as in to

[3:19:07] consider the whole action the

[3:19:10] appeal for the site development

[3:19:11] permit raised concerns or

[3:19:14] stated that the application was

[3:19:16] not compliant with the citywide

[3:19:18] standards, did not address

[3:19:20] traffic safety concerns. I

[3:19:23] stated that it was inadequate

[3:19:25] the meeting fire requirements

[3:19:27] etc. And then the infill

[3:19:29] exemption also said that the

[3:19:32] infill exemption should not

[3:19:34] have been used because

[3:19:35] of unusual circumstances on the

[3:19:36] site and for the failure to

[3:19:38] adequately analyze construction

[3:19:40] phase traffic impacts. There

[3:19:42] were also additional public

[3:19:44] health and safety concerns

[3:19:45] cited in these appeals staff's

[3:19:50] responses included in the memo

[3:19:52] to council to these appeal

[3:19:55] statements is to say that the

[3:19:57] say density bonus law is what

[3:20:00] allows for the waivers from the

[3:20:03] standards that the city has

[3:20:05] since the project is utilizing

[3:20:07] the city density bonus law to

[3:20:09] provide additional density. The

[3:20:11] project as proposed would not

[3:20:12] be able to build if all of the

[3:20:14] city standards were applied.

[3:20:16] therefore the city is required

[3:20:17] to grant that waiver unless

[3:20:19] there is a specific health and

[3:20:20] safety impact associated with

[3:20:22] that granting of that waiver.

[3:20:24] the fire department was

[3:20:25] consulted during the the review

[3:20:27] of this project and the permit

[3:20:30] was cleared by that department.

[3:20:33] compliance with applicable fire

[3:20:34] and building requirements will

[3:20:35] also be verified during the

[3:20:37] building stage there were no

[3:20:38] quantifiable health or safety

[3:20:40] risks that were identified

[3:20:42] during the planning review.

[3:20:44] public works and the department

[3:20:45] of transportation also reviewed

[3:20:47] the project for compliance with

[3:20:48] our traffic standards and the

[3:20:50] san jose's complete street

[3:20:51] design standards and the

[3:20:53] project did comply with those

[3:20:55] requirements. An individual

[3:20:57] site specific traffic impact

[3:20:59] analysis was not required

[3:21:00] because the project is below

[3:21:02] the threshold so we typically

[3:21:03] require those only if a project

[3:21:05] is 25 units or more. Since this

[3:21:07] project was only 12 units there

[3:21:09] was no site specific

[3:21:10] environmental review required.

[3:21:13] the school proximity does not

[3:21:16] particularly trigger additional

[3:21:18] review of the site. That was

[3:21:20] something that was cited. There

[3:21:21] was some state government

[3:21:23] code section cited in the

[3:21:24] appeal those are but those are

[3:21:26] applicable to schools sites not

[3:21:28] to individual private

[3:21:29] properties and then finally

[3:21:32] staff did provide the directors

[3:21:34] hearing recording which is

[3:21:35] posted during the appeal period

[3:21:37] and the project materials were

[3:21:38] also made available to the

[3:21:40] public before a city council

[3:21:41] meeting. This the response to

[3:21:46] the environmental appeal all

[3:21:47] the staff feels that the

[3:21:49] surrounding conditions and

[3:21:50] existing traffic concerns are

[3:21:52] not unusual circumstances. This

[3:21:54] is an infill project on within

[3:21:57] an urban neighborhood or a

[3:21:58] suburban neighborhood. It does

[3:22:00] not trigger any significant

[3:22:02] environmental effects as noted

[3:22:04] previously and construction

[3:22:06] related traffic is not a secure

[3:22:08] related transportation impact.

[3:22:10] typically when there is a

[3:22:11] construction our public works

[3:22:13] department would required

[3:22:14] construction management plans

[3:22:16] that address construction

[3:22:17] related to traffic issues and

[3:22:19] then the project buy in and

[3:22:21] of itself would not

[3:22:21] substantially increase any

[3:22:23] hazards and there are no

[3:22:25] anticipated health and safety

[3:22:26] impacts due to the project's

[3:22:27] size or location since it is

[3:22:31] therefore a staff recommends

[3:22:32] that the council deny the

[3:22:33] permit appeal and uphold the

[3:22:35] director's decision to approve

[3:22:37] the site development permit as

[3:22:38] well as the infill exemption

[3:22:40] for this project that concludes

[3:22:41] staff's presentation and be

[3:22:42] available for any questions.

[3:22:46] all right. Thank you for the

[3:22:46] presentation we have two

[3:22:49] appellants who combined >>

[3:22:51] we'll have five minutes and

[3:22:53] then the applicant will also

[3:22:54] have five minutes. So I'll

[3:22:56] start with the two appellants

[3:22:59] >> don't I don't know if

[3:23:05] they're here. Are the

[3:23:08] appellants here? Okay. We'll

[3:23:13] just pause for a moment or

[3:23:15] either of the appellants on

[3:23:18] this >> project in the chamber

[3:23:20] . Okay we can try one more time

[3:23:26] after the applicant but the

[3:23:28] applicant has up to five

[3:23:29] minutes to speak >>

[3:23:42] . Good evening. Thank you neera

[3:23:45] and staff for the presentation

[3:23:47] and thank you city council for

[3:23:49] hearing this appeal today.

[3:23:52] my name's cyrus and vice

[3:23:53] present development for city

[3:23:54] connect partners. We're

[3:23:56] san jose based real estate

[3:23:57] developers who are specifically

[3:24:00] focused on missing middle

[3:24:02] housing infill housing here in

[3:24:05] the bay area and just bringing

[3:24:07] access to for sale

[3:24:08] homeownership opportunities.

[3:24:11] this project at 1295 corner we

[3:24:13] love it's across the street

[3:24:14] from wattenberg park community

[3:24:17] garden and the middle and high

[3:24:19] school willow glen high schools

[3:24:21] and we're using state and city

[3:24:22] bronislaw as munir described to

[3:24:25] build 12 townhomes two of which

[3:24:28] will be below market rate and

[3:24:30] we're parking this quite

[3:24:31] generously right now 42 stores

[3:24:33] so it's around three and a half

[3:24:34] stalls per unit when as you

[3:24:37] know san jose has a zero

[3:24:39] parking requirement and using a

[3:24:42] density bonus this could be 18

[3:24:44] units using to use but we felt

[3:24:48] we've found a nice sweet spot

[3:24:50] that we think would complement

[3:24:52] the neighborhood. As I

[3:24:54] mentioned march 25th we

[3:24:56] received this to appeals or

[3:24:58] after the tentative map

[3:25:00] approval and one of the

[3:25:02] challenges that we're facing

[3:25:04] especially in this housing

[3:25:05] crisis that we all are dealing

[3:25:07] with is we have these two

[3:25:09] appeals that both each cost

[3:25:13] $250 per appealing on the

[3:25:16] developer side it costs us

[3:25:18] $15,000 per appeal so that's

[3:25:22] $30,000 and here we are august

[3:25:25] 18th to discuss this appeal

[3:25:27] from march 25th. So that's five

[3:25:30] months that we have just been

[3:25:32] kind of waiting around here in

[3:25:33] this window and I just if we're

[3:25:37] to approach this together to

[3:25:39] work with the city developers

[3:25:41] to bring thoughtful infill

[3:25:43] housing next to parks, next to

[3:25:45] schools, next to transit or and

[3:25:48] work where people want to raise

[3:25:50] families, create access to

[3:25:52] homeownership. This is

[3:25:53] something that we need to

[3:25:54] address so delays equal higher

[3:25:59] costs to build homes equals

[3:26:01] higher costs for these homes

[3:26:04] and that's where we are as

[3:26:05] you'll see in the next

[3:26:06] amendment our next agenda item

[3:26:09] even up zoning from r eight to

[3:26:12] r 32 is being proposed with the

[3:26:14] general plan amendment. That

[3:26:15] would mean we could have 21

[3:26:17] homes on this site. So we're

[3:26:19] really excited about this

[3:26:20] project. We hope your to keep

[3:26:23] it going to keep it moving

[3:26:24] forward. It's a shame that the

[3:26:27] opponents you know $250 each to

[3:26:31] produce document aren't even

[3:26:33] here to appeal so it's been

[3:26:35] five months where we've just

[3:26:36] been in this space so thank you

[3:26:38] again for your time and we

[3:26:40] appreciate it. Thanks for your

[3:26:43] time. The appellant is online.

[3:26:45] okay let's go to >> the

[3:26:47] appellant and again >> there's

[3:26:48] a total of five minutes I

[3:26:49] believe we have to have we

[3:26:51] located the other or is it just

[3:26:52] one? Well, the >> other two are

[3:26:54] not online that I see. I only

[3:26:56] have one christine >> one I

[3:26:59] mean start the timer for five

[3:27:00] minutes once again thank you

[3:27:04] but hi can everyone hear me?

[3:27:07] yes, yes. Hi. The crux of >>

[3:27:10] my environmental appeal against

[3:27:13] the 1295 quarter project has

[3:27:16] been existing traffic problems

[3:27:19] at this site. The project will

[3:27:21] permanently worsen these

[3:27:23] problems. I requested a formal

[3:27:25] traffic review before

[3:27:27] proceeding with the project

[3:27:30] today right at the city council

[3:27:33] meeting >> there was an active

[3:27:35] police investigation at the end

[3:27:37] of that intersection of the

[3:27:40] development the entire corner

[3:27:43] of kirchner and cordell was

[3:27:45] blocked off by police and

[3:27:48] helicopters were overhead. Two

[3:27:50] men were stabbed and went to

[3:27:53] hospitals in what nbc and many

[3:27:56] other outlets including mercury

[3:27:57] news say was road rage. Today's

[3:28:02] road rage incident leading to

[3:28:04] two stabbings is the exact

[3:28:07] intersection where neighbors

[3:28:09] have pleaded for a traffic

[3:28:11] study before proceeding. There

[3:28:14] should not be a vote until the

[3:28:16] evidence is clarified as to

[3:28:18] what happened at this road rage

[3:28:20] incident. This road rage

[3:28:22] incident involving >> stabbings

[3:28:24] not matter because there are

[3:28:25] less than 25 units. Are there

[3:28:27] two child injuries >> within

[3:28:30] six months unimportant because

[3:28:33] there are less than 20 >> five

[3:28:34] units. You don't >> have to do

[3:28:36] a traffic study but you should

[3:28:39] your close your eyes and you've

[3:28:40] never answered to explain all

[3:28:43] the child injuries or the >> or

[3:28:46] even this and then you continue

[3:28:48] to proceed saying there is no

[3:28:50] unusual traffic, there is no

[3:28:52] unusual there is this isn't

[3:28:54] corner according to you is not

[3:28:57] a major street. It's insane.

[3:29:05] are you done? I'm done. Okay.

[3:29:09] thank you. All right. Do we

[3:29:13] have the thank you. There was

[3:29:18] still time on the timer. Did

[3:29:20] you find the other appellant? I

[3:29:21] don't see their hands on line.

[3:29:23] I don't wait, there is a

[3:29:25] jenny I'm going to allow her to

[3:29:26] talk and see if that's jennifer

[3:29:28] can wait. Her hand just went

[3:29:29] up. >> can we confirm that that

[3:29:31] is yeah. Yeah. >> hi. Hi yes I

[3:29:34] am the other appellant yes. I

[3:29:36] echo all of christine's points

[3:29:38] and we've been saying the same

[3:29:39] thing the whole time that

[3:29:42] although there is no

[3:29:43] requirement >> to do a safety

[3:29:45] study at 12 units that this

[3:29:47] does seem to be an exception on

[3:29:50] >> the reports have said that

[3:29:51] this is considered a minor

[3:29:53] street. Both carter kirchner

[3:29:54] and cordoba. But we would argue

[3:29:56] at this particular intersection

[3:29:59] that it is a major thoroughfare

[3:30:01] and every single person that

[3:30:03] lives here understands that. So

[3:30:05] we are highly concerned about

[3:30:08] it getting passed without a

[3:30:10] safety study and that's what

[3:30:12] we're asking for. We're not

[3:30:13] saying completely stop this.

[3:30:15] we're saying please take a

[3:30:17] moment. So many of our children

[3:30:19] go here. We have seen so many

[3:30:21] accidents. We live right here.

[3:30:23] we are the first people on

[3:30:24] response when these things

[3:30:26] happen, please make sure it is

[3:30:28] safe. Thank you. Thank that I

[3:30:35] do. Okay let's proceed with

[3:30:37] public comment on this item.

[3:30:39] okay. Let me go through

[3:30:41] my script again. I'm not going

[3:30:44] to because I accidentally

[3:30:45] closed it and you guys heard

[3:30:46] the speech many times. You know

[3:30:48] we're going to call names come

[3:30:50] down to the microphone first

[3:30:51] one >> to speak. Please be

[3:30:53] respectful and speak on the

[3:30:55] topic. I have cleo sandra

[3:30:57] delvin no name it just as local

[3:31:02] subcontractor roberta moore,

[3:31:06] cyrus and alice come on down

[3:31:09] and then I'll go to the zoom

[3:31:11] commenters after these in

[3:31:13] person speakers. Thank you. And

[3:31:15] just a reminder comments tend

[3:31:17] to be specifically on item 10.2

[3:31:20] which is the property located

[3:31:22] at 1295 corner and then in the

[3:31:23] next item we'll get to the

[3:31:25] broader general plan issues.

[3:31:27] yes thank you. Well >> that is

[3:31:34] a lot of trees that I saw in

[3:31:35] the application be removed and

[3:31:38] last week or so you talked

[3:31:39] about tree canopy. This project

[3:31:42] is before you because of the

[3:31:43] actions of the developer has

[3:31:45] requested as well as a

[3:31:47] discretionary review process.

[3:31:50] this process allows the public

[3:31:52] opportunities to comment and

[3:31:53] receive notifications of things

[3:31:55] that will impact them. There

[3:31:58] there's a lot of mature trees

[3:32:00] and they're losing them.

[3:32:01] communities work better when

[3:32:04] residents are provided

[3:32:05] opportunities to be heard and

[3:32:07] have input on the projects that

[3:32:09] impact them every day or will

[3:32:11] in the future. I hope that you

[3:32:13] will still continue to have

[3:32:16] community input on projects in

[3:32:18] this city going forward. Thank

[3:32:20] you. Thank you. Your next

[3:32:22] speaker well >> I'm going to

[3:32:29] shock the out of you. These are

[3:32:32] the kind of projects that work

[3:32:37] parking. Thank you. I was going

[3:32:38] to comment all about parking

[3:32:42] and I want to say that I

[3:32:45] appreciate you having a public

[3:32:46] hearing. If 10.3 passes this

[3:32:50] will be eliminated. I want

[3:32:52] everyone to understand and that

[3:32:56] I do hope that you study and

[3:33:00] fix the traffic safety issue

[3:33:03] and you have the developer

[3:33:05] incorporate that in the cost

[3:33:07] of sale and kudos for building

[3:33:10] housing for homeownership.

[3:33:12] thank you. Thank you. Next

[3:33:16] speaker hi, I'm alice. I was

[3:33:21] shock I actually pulled up

[3:33:22] google just to look look

[3:33:24] at what it is. It's all in a

[3:33:26] single neighbor single family

[3:33:28] neighborhood. Okay. Do you live

[3:33:30] >> right next to a 12 unit

[3:33:32] apartment? Do you most people

[3:33:35] don't they don't expect you to

[3:33:37] be doing this. So >> I'm

[3:33:39] looking at it. Okay. So what's

[3:33:40] a benefit to two affordable

[3:33:43] housing? One is a moderate

[3:33:45] income. What are you are trying

[3:33:46] to achieve? Okay, this is just

[3:33:49] a developer stream and and

[3:33:51] aiming to destroy a single

[3:33:53] family neighborhood. How could

[3:33:56] you be allowing this kind

[3:33:57] of stuff to happen to san jose

[3:34:00] that is just not okay. Okay so

[3:34:03] I need >> you to go back to the

[3:34:05] drawing board to consider what

[3:34:08] a single family housing

[3:34:10] neighborhood looks like. We're

[3:34:12] you know, we have plenty

[3:34:14] of space if you want a higher

[3:34:16] density housing you can >>

[3:34:18] go somewhere else. Thank you.

[3:34:21] next speaker >> hi, my name is

[3:34:30] ron stern and I live 1275 or

[3:34:33] so. I shower a 100 foot fence

[3:34:35] with this guy and I'm telling

[3:34:37] you there's beautiful 100 year

[3:34:39] old trees on the property. So

[3:34:40] we're going to try to squeeze

[3:34:42] so much stuff in such a little

[3:34:44] spot. The traffic I don't know

[3:34:45] if any of you ever been down

[3:34:46] kirton around or cornell avenue

[3:34:48] during school you cannot move

[3:34:50] from kerner all the way to >>

[3:34:53] pine avenue. It's just a solid

[3:34:54] wall now they're talking about

[3:34:56] 30, 40, 50, 60 cars. They're

[3:34:58] talking about more people.

[3:35:00] they're talking about more

[3:35:01] congestion. I can't even back

[3:35:03] my car on to kirton or any more

[3:35:04] because of all the problems and

[3:35:06] I just find that nobody >>

[3:35:07] cares. Nobody you guys work for

[3:35:09] us. We don't work for you. We

[3:35:11] don't want this development in

[3:35:12] our neighborhood. This is a

[3:35:14] single family. It's been that

[3:35:16] way for a long time. I'm

[3:35:17] retired. I don't want to listen

[3:35:18] to building over the next 18

[3:35:20] months day and night I'm going

[3:35:21] to have to listen to saws

[3:35:23] sanding cars, trucks,

[3:35:25] everything and I my enjoyment

[3:35:27] and my property will be gone.

[3:35:29] and this is a 30 foot building

[3:35:31] right >> next to my fence 30ft

[3:35:33] . Thank you. That's your time.

[3:35:36] next speaker >> you okay? So

[3:35:41] I'm going to go to online I

[3:35:42] have been carter followed by

[3:35:45] brian van carter you're unmuted

[3:35:52] but we're not hearing you.

[3:35:58] okay. I'm going to move on to

[3:35:59] brian followed by gorman. Simon

[3:36:04] >> says to you but I'll keep it

[3:36:05] under one minute. I want to

[3:36:08] make sure that the people

[3:36:10] listen to what these people are

[3:36:11] saying. The owner has a right

[3:36:13] and we do need more housing but

[3:36:14] there's the infrastructure that

[3:36:15] you there's the infrastructure

[3:36:17] issue there. The there's a and

[3:36:22] the traffic studies that should

[3:36:24] be done and I have driven out

[3:36:26] there and I walk over there it

[3:36:28] is a very dangerous

[3:36:29] intersection. And so I mean you

[3:36:33] can't really do anything about

[3:36:34] it because of what the state

[3:36:35] did and the train it can talk

[3:36:39] to the state is beyond futile.

[3:36:42] so okay. Thank you. Hold on.

[3:36:48] gorman followed by blair hello.

[3:36:55] go ahead. Okay. Good afternoon,

[3:36:58] council members. I'm here today

[3:36:59] to oppose the development

[3:37:01] at 1295 new avenue. This is not

[3:37:03] simply about adding housing.

[3:37:05] it's about making sure that any

[3:37:07] development this size is

[3:37:08] appropriate for the location

[3:37:09] and the concerns of the people

[3:37:11] who actually live here. I

[3:37:12] genuinely heard kerner avenue

[3:37:14] was identified as part of the

[3:37:15] city's vision zero five year

[3:37:17] plan which recognizes the need

[3:37:19] to address dangerous weeds and

[3:37:20] prevent serious injuries and

[3:37:23] fatalities. Today we have an

[3:37:25] urgent reminder of why this

[3:37:26] matter. As you mentioned

[3:37:28] earlier, a stabbing occurred on

[3:37:29] the corner of kirton and

[3:37:30] connell following what has been

[3:37:31] reported as a road rage

[3:37:33] incident. I'm not suggesting

[3:37:35] that this development caused

[3:37:36] that incident but it

[3:37:37] underscores the real safety

[3:37:38] concerns surrounding traffic

[3:37:40] conditions and conflict in this

[3:37:41] area. It is a major thruway to

[3:37:44] freeway 87 and to 88 gold

[3:37:47] within one mile. And even if

[3:37:49] it's not required, do the right

[3:37:50] thing. Listen to your

[3:37:51] constituents and request for a

[3:37:55] traffic study. >> blair

[3:37:57] followed by toni >> by >> blair

[3:38:01] bateman. Nice to hear public

[3:38:03] comment on this item. It's >>

[3:38:06] an old issue good luck and a

[3:38:09] community process working to

[3:38:11] solve this issue. I'm really

[3:38:13] going to respect that if

[3:38:15] there's 100 year old trees

[3:38:16] there and it sounds like a

[3:38:17] number of them that has a

[3:38:19] certain precedence I think tree

[3:38:22] canopies have a certain

[3:38:23] precedence. Good luck in

[3:38:25] wanting to develop low and

[3:38:26] moderate income housing also. I

[3:38:29] hope we can be doing those

[3:38:30] things. It was stated that the

[3:38:33] land >> in this area is pretty

[3:38:35] clean and pretty clear. No

[3:38:38] environmental hazards. Serious.

[3:38:41] good luck if extra tests are

[3:38:42] needed. Our extra environmental

[3:38:45] tests are currently needed for

[3:38:47] the item of 10.1650 harry

[3:38:50] drive. Item I just thought I'd

[3:38:52] ask that. Thank you. >> thank

[3:38:54] you toni followed by venkata.

[3:39:03] hear me? Yes. Okay. Right.

[3:39:08] well, thank you for listening

[3:39:10] to us or to me for today. I

[3:39:14] oppose this tremendously. You

[3:39:16] can do a traffic thing but even

[3:39:18] with the traffic thing I think

[3:39:19] it's a poor decision if you

[3:39:20] want to put a couple units like

[3:39:22] four possibly that are lower no

[3:39:25] more than two stories I could

[3:39:27] understand that. But to put as

[3:39:29] many homes as you're doing and

[3:39:30] if the next thing is passed

[3:39:33] it'll be even worse because

[3:39:34] you'll try to put more in

[3:39:35] there. There is a school there

[3:39:38] and trust me I drive down. I do

[3:39:40] not even go near curtin or in

[3:39:42] carmel during school time. This

[3:39:44] is could be a terrible terrible

[3:39:46] mistake of putting this live in

[3:39:48] the school >> for them. Thank

[3:39:52] you laura >> followed by renee.

[3:40:03] laura, you're unmuted. Can you

[3:40:06] hear me? Yes. Okay. I was born

[3:40:09] >> and raised in san jose and I

[3:40:10] have lived two streets away

[3:40:12] from the property in question

[3:40:13] for 28 years. I am very

[3:40:15] concerned about the parking for

[3:40:17] the proposed condominium units

[3:40:18] >> many families bring with

[3:40:20] them at least two vehicles and

[3:40:22] sometimes many more. If the

[3:40:24] number of owned vehicles

[3:40:25] exceeds >> the number

[3:40:26] of parking spaces on the

[3:40:28] proposed property, cars will

[3:40:29] overflow into the street.

[3:40:31] currently there is a preschool,

[3:40:33] a middle school and a high

[3:40:35] school all located on carroll

[3:40:37] avenue between the subject

[3:40:38] property and dry creek road.

[3:40:40] all three of those schools are

[3:40:42] only in one quarter of a mile.

[3:40:45] there are hundreds and hundreds

[3:40:46] of students >> attending these

[3:40:47] schools. Last year alone

[3:40:49] several students were injured

[3:40:50] during pick up and drop off due

[3:40:52] to extreme traffic congestion.

[3:40:53] on the addition of more parked

[3:40:55] cars will only exacerbate this

[3:40:57] problem. As a homeowner I have

[3:40:59] witnessed >> many many more

[3:41:00] near-misses every day. The

[3:41:03] addition of added cars due to

[3:41:05] inadequate parking >> will pose

[3:41:06] significant risk. Renee I can

[3:41:13] hear me. Yes. These type of >>

[3:41:16] projects in the middle

[3:41:17] of existing neighborhoods

[3:41:18] should not be allowed. 12 units

[3:41:19] on residential parcel is a lot

[3:41:21] of additional people in cars.

[3:41:22] 14 waivers to get this through.

[3:41:24] that's a lot of waivers. The

[3:41:26] applicant said that real estate

[3:41:27] developers trying to solve the

[3:41:28] housing crisis. Unfortunately

[3:41:30] the housing crisis continues to

[3:41:31] get worse because of real

[3:41:33] estate developers by

[3:41:34] redeveloping single family

[3:41:36] homes into multi units or multi

[3:41:38] homes. It just makes the

[3:41:39] housing prices continue to

[3:41:40] soar. The city council should

[3:41:42] reject this plan and work

[3:41:44] toward trying to save san jose

[3:41:45] neighborhoods and

[3:41:46] overdevelopment. And see what

[3:41:48] we can do to fight back against

[3:41:50] developers at the state level

[3:41:52] which is basically how they're

[3:41:53] trying to push a lot of these

[3:41:55] projects through by using state

[3:41:58] laws and also by just

[3:42:00] dismantling local oversight.

[3:42:03] thank you. >> back to council.

[3:42:06] >> thank you, toni. Everyone

[3:42:09] who spoke in public comment

[3:42:11] only turned to my colleagues.

[3:42:12] we'll start with the vice mayor

[3:42:13] foley. Thank you, mayor and

[3:42:17] thank you for the presentation

[3:42:19] and for all the public

[3:42:20] comments. I know this

[3:42:22] intersection in this house

[3:42:24] really well although it's in

[3:42:25] districts six >> it's probably

[3:42:27] closer to my house than it is

[3:42:29] to yours. Council member. So I

[3:42:31] drive down that way all the

[3:42:34] time. I know curt and are very

[3:42:35] well kirchner >> is a vision

[3:42:37] zero corridor and does have

[3:42:40] some serious safety issues that

[3:42:43] intersection and in particular

[3:42:45] is a dangerous intersection. I

[3:42:47] agree with our the callers

[3:42:50] about that. In the report it

[3:42:52] mentions that speed bumps have

[3:42:54] been installed on codel but

[3:42:58] that isn't correct. I drove

[3:43:00] down cogdell just yesterday to

[3:43:02] confirm. As I said it's very

[3:43:04] close to my house. I use that

[3:43:06] way to get home all the time

[3:43:08] and did not. There were no

[3:43:10] speed bumps so I'm wondering

[3:43:11] what the status is of the speed

[3:43:13] bumps that might be implemented

[3:43:16] to be installed on that street.

[3:43:18] >> through the mayor we do have

[3:43:21] department of transportation

[3:43:23] staff perhaps they can address

[3:43:25] like what kind of traffic

[3:43:26] calming measures are being

[3:43:28] implemented or proposed in that

[3:43:30] area. Oh good because I have

[3:43:31] more questions for him. Thank

[3:43:33] you. >> you know I am the

[3:43:37] vision zero councilmember so

[3:43:41] and this corridor is of concern

[3:43:44] to me >>. Hi. Hello. >> council

[3:43:48] member for the future dottie

[3:43:49] division manager. Thank you for

[3:43:52] your question. I was not aware

[3:43:54] of the speed bumps but I'll

[3:43:55] have to talk to our vision zero

[3:43:57] team. They're the ones who

[3:43:57] handled those. I'm from a

[3:43:59] different division. I do

[3:44:01] development review as some

[3:44:03] of your council members know

[3:44:04] that I've worked with

[3:44:04] personally but we'll get back

[3:44:06] to you on the speed bumps

[3:44:09] question but definitely this

[3:44:10] intersection in the surrounding

[3:44:12] neighborhood and the high

[3:44:14] school there will high school

[3:44:16] has received attention from

[3:44:18] d.o.t. Traffic safety and our

[3:44:19] neighborhood traffic management

[3:44:21] team in the last few years and

[3:44:24] we'll receive more in the next

[3:44:26] upcoming year. We're currently

[3:44:28] waiting for as the school has

[3:44:30] started for traffic patterns to

[3:44:33] normalize before our

[3:44:36] neighborhood traffic management

[3:44:37] team will go out there, obtain

[3:44:40] specific counts to do a

[3:44:42] crossing guard study at the

[3:44:44] intersection of cogdell and

[3:44:46] kerner and our safety team that

[3:44:50] our school safety team will

[3:44:52] also in mid-october do go out

[3:44:56] there and obtain additional

[3:44:58] data to do a access and

[3:45:00] circulation study that they do

[3:45:04] at other high schools and

[3:45:05] elementary schools in san jose.

[3:45:08] so thank you for that. So

[3:45:10] you're still planning to do a

[3:45:12] traffic study of sorts to

[3:45:14] determine the flow of traffic

[3:45:16] down cogdell and kerner or

[3:45:18] particularly in relation to the

[3:45:20] schools. But that really is

[3:45:22] when traffic is most impacted

[3:45:24] on cogdell avenue because

[3:45:27] of willow glen middle high and

[3:45:29] the preschool that is right

[3:45:30] there. So you're planning to do

[3:45:32] that after school gets settled

[3:45:34] in september or october? Yes,

[3:45:37] right now I think we're talking

[3:45:39] about a mid-october timeline in

[3:45:41] terms of the actual school

[3:45:43] circulation and access study. I

[3:45:45] think that counts for the cross

[3:45:47] card study. Well, maybe perhaps

[3:45:50] a little bit earlier will be

[3:45:51] obtained but will confirm. >>

[3:45:53] okay. Thank you for that. The

[3:45:56] other thing I noticed as I was

[3:45:58] driving across the intersection

[3:46:00] is that the paint on for the

[3:46:04] intersection for the crosswalks

[3:46:06] is quite faded and could use a

[3:46:08] >> refresher. I know they're

[3:46:10] doing work on kerner. We've

[3:46:12] worked on it regularly and it's

[3:46:16] even just having the highlights

[3:46:19] of better painting would would

[3:46:21] help a little bit. So I'm happy

[3:46:25] to hear that. I'm I'm going to

[3:46:27] defer to councilmember mulcahy

[3:46:29] for for some of this but you

[3:46:32] should all know that this is a

[3:46:33] quasi hearing and we act as

[3:46:35] judge and jury over this

[3:46:37] hearing and we're only hearing

[3:46:40] the appeal to what the what

[3:46:44] planning department has already

[3:46:46] said. Isn't that correct? Yes.

[3:46:50] from an attorney or someone who

[3:46:52] whoever? Yes, that is correct.

[3:46:53] although the council can

[3:46:54] consider the project de novo in

[3:46:56] terms of the entirety of the

[3:46:57] project. Okay. So I'm not sure

[3:47:00] that this is on point within

[3:47:02] this quasi hearing or not but I

[3:47:04] have a question with regards to

[3:47:07] the construction hours as it

[3:47:09] relates to the middle and high

[3:47:11] school and traffic patterns. I

[3:47:14] would hope that when we move

[3:47:17] forward or is it possible to

[3:47:19] restrict construction outside

[3:47:22] the window of commute traffic

[3:47:26] drop off and pick up because

[3:47:28] it's they're working on cogdell

[3:47:30] or kerner >> it's going to be a

[3:47:32] mess and I share the concern

[3:47:34] of those neighbors who live

[3:47:35] there. I don't have to >> drop

[3:47:37] my daughter off anymore. She's

[3:47:38] 30 but I used to drop her off

[3:47:40] all the time to willow, glen

[3:47:42] and I'd figure out ways to

[3:47:43] avoid the traffic. It's only

[3:47:45] gotten worse so is there

[3:47:47] anything we can? Yes, we can.

[3:47:51] yeah, I think for a

[3:47:52] construction project typically

[3:47:54] a construction management plan

[3:47:55] could be required and the

[3:47:57] council has the discretion to

[3:47:59] provide parameters that can

[3:48:00] then be imposed by the public

[3:48:01] works team. >> okay so council

[3:48:03] member when that comes before

[3:48:06] you I'll let you advocate for

[3:48:09] the schools and parents who are

[3:48:11] traveling with that. I really

[3:48:13] appreciate it. I'm familiar

[3:48:15] with the project, I'm familiar

[3:48:16] with the the house as I said

[3:48:19] very, very much so I think it

[3:48:23] is higher density that in is

[3:48:25] what the what is there now and

[3:48:29] my major concern is traffic and

[3:48:32] pedestrian safety. So I'll

[3:48:34] leave it at that. Thank you.

[3:48:35] thanks, vice mayor. We turn to

[3:48:37] councilmember mckay. Thank you,

[3:48:41] mayor. Thank you, vice mayor

[3:48:44] foley for raising some of those

[3:48:46] issues. I was going to cover a

[3:48:49] couple of those things but I

[3:48:50] really just wanted to start

[3:48:53] when one of the callers came on

[3:48:55] I think it was christine, one

[3:48:57] of the appellant's she was

[3:48:59] right. There was a tragic

[3:49:01] collision or excuse me a tragic

[3:49:04] incident that occurred at this

[3:49:05] very intersection at about 1115

[3:49:08] earlier today which I found out

[3:49:11] about right before this

[3:49:13] meeting. And it was a road rage

[3:49:15] incident. And as vice mayor

[3:49:19] foley pointed out, this has

[3:49:21] been a challenging street

[3:49:23] overall. Kerner is not just

[3:49:26] at coddle but at hix and books

[3:49:28] and and meridian and I know

[3:49:31] going into council member

[3:49:32] foley, vice mayor foley's and

[3:49:36] councilmember duane's district

[3:49:37] that's a kerner situation and

[3:49:40] so we have a lot of work to do

[3:49:42] to keep that a safer street

[3:49:44] overall. So having said that, I

[3:49:49] just want to thank the

[3:49:50] applicant and and the

[3:49:51] appellants for speaking today

[3:49:54] and for following through on

[3:49:55] the appeals process and for

[3:49:57] sharing perspectives and

[3:49:58] reasoning. And again I know

[3:50:01] vice mayor covid this I want to

[3:50:02] emphasize that our role on this

[3:50:04] item is different than a

[3:50:05] typical council agenda. We hear

[3:50:08] this item as a quasi judicial

[3:50:10] role and what is considered an

[3:50:12] administrative appeal. So our

[3:50:14] role is not to decide whether

[3:50:16] we endorse the project at 1295

[3:50:18] kerner avenue or not. It's

[3:50:21] whether they have met the

[3:50:23] obligations of the appeal and

[3:50:25] really all of the project piece

[3:50:27] of this was determined by the

[3:50:29] director of planning at an

[3:50:30] earlier hearing. So with that

[3:50:33] as a backdrop based on

[3:50:34] my review of the information

[3:50:35] made available on the appeal

[3:50:37] and the process the applicable

[3:50:39] laws and procedures appear to

[3:50:41] have been followed now having

[3:50:44] said that, as the community is

[3:50:46] aware our office shares many

[3:50:48] of the concerns regarding

[3:50:50] traffic safety at kerner and

[3:50:51] connell and certainly

[3:50:53] reinforced by the incident this

[3:50:55] morning. We're actually

[3:50:56] concerned about council overall

[3:50:57] as I said before and will

[3:50:59] continue to work on those

[3:51:00] issues more broadly than just

[3:51:03] this intersection. But last

[3:51:05] year there was a collision

[3:51:07] incident at kerner and cottle

[3:51:09] and I think our dot

[3:51:11] representative talked about

[3:51:12] some of the things that

[3:51:14] resulted from that. We've added

[3:51:16] delineation and striping red

[3:51:18] curbing and daylighting at the

[3:51:20] intersection and for those

[3:51:23] of you not as familiar I know

[3:51:24] it was talked about there's a

[3:51:26] park, a community garden, a

[3:51:29] significant tennis facility

[3:51:31] there will a glen middle school

[3:51:34] and willow glen high school it

[3:51:35] is very active and I want to

[3:51:38] specifically recognize the

[3:51:39] willow glen neighborhood

[3:51:41] association and marian sedar

[3:51:42] quest who really helped

[3:51:44] spearhead some of the response

[3:51:46] to that incident last year. Now

[3:51:49] because of the type

[3:51:50] of application this project is

[3:51:51] under state law the city is

[3:51:53] limited in what it can require

[3:51:54] the applicant including traffic

[3:51:57] mitigation improvements. But I

[3:51:59] did want to mention that with

[3:52:01] planning staff and during the

[3:52:02] design process the developer

[3:52:04] did move the ingress egress

[3:52:07] farther. I think it is north on

[3:52:09] cottle in order to get farther

[3:52:13] away from the intersection due

[3:52:14] to obvious concerns about more

[3:52:17] crowding at the intersection >>

[3:52:19] and I know you know this

[3:52:22] doesn't appeal to everybody but

[3:52:23] the developer is building less

[3:52:25] units than they could have

[3:52:28] under state law. And you heard

[3:52:30] the parking ratio at three and

[3:52:33] a half and you know that is

[3:52:37] certainly an improvement to

[3:52:38] what this could have been. And

[3:52:40] as vice mayor foley pointed

[3:52:42] out, I live right up the

[3:52:43] street. I probably I think I

[3:52:45] was on kerner and connell

[3:52:47] intersection this morning on

[3:52:49] the way here. I'm there very

[3:52:51] frequently. I get it and I know

[3:52:53] that is a challenge. But

[3:52:56] there's also the property that

[3:52:58] is there has contributed to the

[3:53:00] challenge and yes there are

[3:53:03] some fantastic trees on the

[3:53:04] property but basically the

[3:53:06] property is the site is so that

[3:53:10] there's created a blind spot

[3:53:11] right on curtin and right on

[3:53:13] cottle because its foliage is

[3:53:16] right out on to onto the

[3:53:18] street. This project will

[3:53:20] provide a greater setback

[3:53:22] at the front edge to create a

[3:53:24] little bit less a lot less of a

[3:53:26] blind spot at that intersection

[3:53:28] both traveling southbound on

[3:53:30] cottle and westbound on and

[3:53:35] kirchner >> so I do we have

[3:53:37] john I know are you here for us

[3:53:39] for dougherty today sir? Yes,

[3:53:42] ma'am. Council okay so there's

[3:53:44] been talk about we can't

[3:53:47] mandate the developer do

[3:53:48] traffic study right? We've been

[3:53:50] doing some of our own because

[3:53:52] in the midst of this process

[3:53:53] we've had other incidents occur

[3:53:55] and of course today we want to

[3:53:58] I want to talk about what we

[3:53:59] can learn from the accident

[3:54:02] that occurred today or the

[3:54:03] incident that occurred today.

[3:54:05] but talk >> to me about what

[3:54:08] what I'd like to recommend is

[3:54:10] that we do a city initiated

[3:54:12] traffic study. It's beyond what

[3:54:14] we're doing for and maybe we

[3:54:16] could sort of piece it together

[3:54:18] with what we're doing for the

[3:54:19] crossing guard program to test

[3:54:22] whether that's going to be

[3:54:23] something we can do at this

[3:54:24] corner. But to make sure that

[3:54:27] we have a baseline of where we

[3:54:28] are pre-construction

[3:54:30] construction and then the the

[3:54:32] concept of a post construction

[3:54:35] but after the occupancy and

[3:54:38] let's say that we get to 75%

[3:54:41] occupancy see of the 12 units

[3:54:43] before we would initiate a

[3:54:45] second after construction

[3:54:48] traffic study with the notion

[3:54:50] that we would do it during

[3:54:52] school time just like we're

[3:54:53] talking about or it's a foley

[3:54:55] loaded schedule both schools

[3:54:57] are back. Is that something

[3:54:59] that we can accommodate and and

[3:55:01] you know put on the record now?

[3:55:03] >> yeah, definitely we can work

[3:55:06] with their staff to make sure

[3:55:08] that that can happen and we'll

[3:55:10] use this opportunity to obtain

[3:55:12] what we can call like existing

[3:55:14] operations and data and then

[3:55:16] post as you said seven 5%

[3:55:18] occupancy afterwards we can

[3:55:20] go back out there and look

[3:55:22] at the situation and obtained

[3:55:23] it again. >> so I want to make

[3:55:25] sure that we're on the same

[3:55:26] page in terms of this

[3:55:28] pre-construction study, I want

[3:55:30] to make sure that we have this

[3:55:32] one piece that's working

[3:55:33] through the system relative to

[3:55:35] testing whether it would rise

[3:55:37] to try a crossing guard. But

[3:55:40] then the other piece that I'm

[3:55:42] talking about is getting an

[3:55:43] overall baseline that might

[3:55:45] require some other data so on

[3:55:47] to make sure we're on the same

[3:55:48] page and we'll work together to

[3:55:49] make sure that scoping is right

[3:55:51] . That's right. Correct. Okay.

[3:55:53] >> and then I don't know if

[3:55:57] you've had any experience with

[3:56:00] you know, whether or not

[3:56:01] there's anything we can learn

[3:56:03] and we won't know until the

[3:56:04] coming days from the incident

[3:56:06] today and whether or not that

[3:56:09] was exacerbated by roadway

[3:56:12] conditions caused by roadway

[3:56:14] conditions. Was there any

[3:56:15] relationship between the

[3:56:17] intersection and what happened?

[3:56:19] I don't think anybody

[3:56:21] of nobody's been out of this

[3:56:22] building today to necessarily

[3:56:24] investigate that. But I want to

[3:56:25] make sure that there's a police

[3:56:27] department engagement and

[3:56:29] really understanding whether or

[3:56:30] not there's anything we can

[3:56:31] learn from today that can

[3:56:33] inform other measures that we

[3:56:35] may take at that intersection.

[3:56:37] >> yeah. D.o.t. Typically works

[3:56:40] with the police department to

[3:56:41] look at the police reports for

[3:56:42] various collisions to

[3:56:44] understand what were the causes

[3:56:47] of the collisions in the

[3:56:47] incidents. Yeah. So when that

[3:56:50] will be available we'll will

[3:56:51] definitely make sure that

[3:56:52] that's part of the study that

[3:56:54] we do out there. Okay. Thank

[3:56:56] you. And >> to the vice mayor's

[3:56:58] point, I'll just double down

[3:57:00] that if there's any you know,

[3:57:03] discoloration in the

[3:57:05] intersection as we sit here

[3:57:06] today, that's probably

[3:57:08] something we can get out and

[3:57:09] and take care of pretty

[3:57:11] quickly. Yes, we can work with

[3:57:14] our d.o.t. Pavement crews to

[3:57:16] refresh, as we say, the

[3:57:18] existing striping out there. I

[3:57:19] mean we've >> been we've done

[3:57:20] work out there most recently

[3:57:22] but a lot of times we put in

[3:57:23] the new work but we don't

[3:57:24] really check the old stuff and

[3:57:26] I think we should do that. So

[3:57:29] >> turning away from traffic I

[3:57:30] just want to go back to trees.

[3:57:33] this has been a very hot topic

[3:57:34] lately here at council. Yes

[3:57:38] they are removing 24 trees but

[3:57:41] as I understand it and minera

[3:57:42] maybe you can check my math on

[3:57:44] this the development will plant

[3:57:48] 81 new trees on this site which

[3:57:52] is more than the 74 that would

[3:57:54] be required at the site minera

[3:57:55] can you confirm I have that

[3:57:57] number right? Yes, that is

[3:57:58] correct. So >> given the jury a

[3:58:01] grand jury report we heard

[3:58:03] at council last week, we know

[3:58:04] how important trees are. I

[3:58:06] think this will be helpful for

[3:58:08] our tree canopy and the

[3:58:09] well-being of our city. The one

[3:58:11] thing I want to make sure we do

[3:58:13] and I'm know I'm talking to the

[3:58:16] chiefs of the department here

[3:58:19] we have to make sure that every

[3:58:21] one of those trees gets in the

[3:58:22] ground, especially those street

[3:58:25] trees, those ones that you know

[3:58:28] matter the most to the people

[3:58:29] that are expecting that we're

[3:58:31] going to follow through when we

[3:58:33] say we're going to expect trees

[3:58:34] that they actually get planted.

[3:58:36] so we want to make sure that

[3:58:37] we're you know, on that before

[3:58:39] they get their final. So I

[3:58:43] would just say as a council

[3:58:44] office and as your council

[3:58:46] member will continue to work

[3:58:48] with our residents and our

[3:58:50] transportation partners as well

[3:58:52] as us the san jose unified

[3:58:54] school district leadership whom

[3:58:56] we've spoken to before about

[3:58:58] modifying school times which is

[3:59:00] a state requirement and they

[3:59:02] can't do that. That idea

[3:59:03] of breaking up may be a little

[3:59:05] bit different middle school

[3:59:06] high school even five minutes

[3:59:08] we've noted would make a huge

[3:59:10] difference. State law >> will

[3:59:12] not allow them to do that but

[3:59:14] we'll continue to find ways to

[3:59:16] keep our kids safe and working

[3:59:18] with san jose unified on that.

[3:59:20] >> I just want to say that

[3:59:23] traffic safety I'm sort

[3:59:25] of looking down the days here

[3:59:26] it's probably top three for

[3:59:28] every one of us as we hear from

[3:59:29] our community and will continue

[3:59:31] to be a point of interest. So

[3:59:33] with that I do want to move

[3:59:35] staff's recommendation to deny

[3:59:37] the site development permit and

[3:59:40] environmental appeals and to

[3:59:42] approve this project second all

[3:59:47] right, thanks council

[3:59:48] appreciate >> all your good

[3:59:49] questions and comments on the

[3:59:52] trees. It may be a pet peeve

[3:59:53] but with a strong preference

[3:59:54] for native trees that are going

[3:59:56] to actually provide real

[3:59:57] longevity and canopy cover when

[3:59:59] they get built out and what

[4:00:00] little I don't know how you do

[4:00:02] 60 some we don't want little

[4:00:04] ornamental things I think some

[4:00:05] real real trees would be great.

[4:00:08] okay what else anything else

[4:00:09] from colleagues I'm not seeing

[4:00:12] anything. So toni, we need to

[4:00:14] vote on this item motion from

[4:00:16] councilor mulcahy

[4:00:34] . Motion passes >> unanimously.

[4:00:39] okay. Thank you, toni. All

[4:00:41] right. Thank you to staff we

[4:00:43] are on to item 10.3. This is

[4:00:47] the general plan four year

[4:00:50] review policy framework going

[4:00:53] to have a staff presentation

[4:00:55] then we'll move to public

[4:00:56] comment and then we'll come

[4:00:57] back to the council for

[4:00:59] discussion and a motion I do

[4:01:03] want to just note for the

[4:01:03] public and we have a lot

[4:01:05] of folks here who want to speak

[4:01:06] as I mentioned before, we

[4:01:09] strongly encourage folks to not

[4:01:12] cheer and boos so that we can

[4:01:14] hear people can have their time

[4:01:15] at the mic and we can be

[4:01:16] efficient so we're not here

[4:01:17] until midnight. I also want to

[4:01:19]

[4:01:20] I see some very large signs and

[4:01:24] I support your signs as an

[4:01:25] expression of free speech.

[4:01:26] however we ask you to keep them

[4:01:29] down kind of in front of you

[4:01:30] and do not block the person

[4:01:32] behind you. Please be

[4:01:33] respectful to your neighbors.

[4:01:36] not everyone in the chamber

[4:01:37] here agrees on this issue. I

[4:01:38] think we're going to hear from

[4:01:39] a wide range of perspectives.

[4:01:43] one other note and toni, we'll

[4:01:44] have more when we go to public

[4:01:45] comment. Council members may

[4:01:47] step back into the green room

[4:01:48] to use the restroom or grab a

[4:01:50] quick bite to eat. It's already

[4:01:51] been a long day. We started

[4:01:53] with closed session at 9:30

[4:01:54] a.m. Today. I want you to know

[4:01:56] that in the back we have the

[4:01:58] full meeting on screens and

[4:01:59] full audio so people are

[4:02:01] hearing every bit of the

[4:02:02] presentation, every public

[4:02:03] comment. It is not a way for

[4:02:05] council members to duck out on

[4:02:08] you. I just want you to be to

[4:02:09] rest assured. Okay chris, I'm

[4:02:12] going to turn to you to begin

[4:02:13] the staff presentation and then

[4:02:15] we'll go to public comment.

[4:02:19] thank you, mayor chris burton,

[4:02:22] director of planning building

[4:02:24] code enforcement. I'm joined

[4:02:25] here today by mira sand here,

[4:02:28] deputy director of planning and

[4:02:30] then ruth cueto and jared

[4:02:32] ferguson who are our principal

[4:02:34] planners within our citywide

[4:02:36] planning team and have really

[4:02:38] been the leads on this effort.

[4:02:41] so today we're here to present

[4:02:44] our recommended policy

[4:02:45] framework for our four year

[4:02:46] review of the general plan

[4:02:49] before we get into the

[4:02:50] specifics, I just wanted to

[4:02:51] talk about where we are in the

[4:02:53] process and what it is that

[4:02:54] we're asking the city council

[4:02:55] to do today. Today's action,

[4:02:58] just to be clear does not amend

[4:03:00] our general plan. It doesn't

[4:03:01] change the zoning

[4:03:03] of residential properties and

[4:03:04] it would not approve

[4:03:05] development projects or in

[4:03:07] title any particular parcel.

[4:03:09] what we're asking the city

[4:03:10] council to do today is to

[4:03:12] provide us with direction on

[4:03:13] the policies staff should

[4:03:14] develop and analyze and then

[4:03:17] bring back for formal

[4:03:18] consideration the proposed

[4:03:21] general plan amendments, zoning

[4:03:22] changes and development

[4:03:24] standards and then all the

[4:03:25] supporting analysis for the

[4:03:27] environmental work would then

[4:03:28] return to the planning

[4:03:29] commission and the city council

[4:03:31] for public hearings in december

[4:03:32] of 27 and they want to

[4:03:34] highlight that as we continue.

[4:03:36] I want to highlight that

[4:03:37] because we continue to receive

[4:03:39] as you can see considerable

[4:03:40] additional input from residents

[4:03:42] particularly about small

[4:03:44] multifamily or what we call our

[4:03:46] missing middle portion of this

[4:03:47] work a a lot of that feedback

[4:03:50] that we've received has

[4:03:51] centered around the scale

[4:03:53] of future development and its

[4:03:54] direct impacts on immediate

[4:03:57] neighbors and then the

[4:03:58] cumulative effect of change

[4:04:00] within our residential single

[4:04:01] family neighborhoods. And so

[4:04:03] you know I just want to be

[4:04:03] clear that today is not the end

[4:04:04] of that conversation. You know,

[4:04:07] it's very much that we're

[4:04:10] asking council to determine

[4:04:11] what staff should go study and

[4:04:13] what issues need to be

[4:04:14] addressed before a final

[4:04:15] decision is made. Okay. So why

[4:04:18] now? So this work is part of a

[4:04:21] longer housing planning process

[4:04:23] that the city undertakes. It

[4:04:25] began with the adoption of the

[4:04:27] sixth cycle of a housing

[4:04:29] element and then the

[4:04:30] certification by the state's

[4:04:32] department of housing and

[4:04:33] community development that

[4:04:35] occurred back in early 2023

[4:04:38] city council saw this in 2022

[4:04:41] when we often talk about the

[4:04:42] housing element a lot of people

[4:04:44] think about the regional

[4:04:45] housing needs allocation number

[4:04:47] that's the 62,000 residential

[4:04:49] unit number that you often hear

[4:04:51] spoken about. But the document

[4:04:53] itself also includes over 90

[4:04:56] policies that the city

[4:04:57] committed to undertake to

[4:04:59] promote the availability and

[4:05:00] the diversity of housing

[4:05:02] throughout san jose. Our most

[4:05:04] recent housing element included

[4:05:06] commitments to create the small

[4:05:08] multifamily housing

[4:05:09] opportunities as well as to

[4:05:11] update our urban village

[4:05:12] strategy which we'll touch on

[4:05:14] as well. We'll as I said refer

[4:05:17] to it multiple times throughout

[4:05:19] this presentation. They're the

[4:05:22] agency with the state that's

[4:05:23] responsible for the

[4:05:24] certification but also the

[4:05:25] monitoring of the

[4:05:27] municipalities housing elements

[4:05:30] and they've made it very clear

[4:05:31] that they'll continue to

[4:05:32] monitor the city's

[4:05:33] implementation of those

[4:05:34] commitments throughout this

[4:05:35] period. At the same time we're

[4:05:37] looking to prepare for our next

[4:05:39] housing element. That cycle

[4:05:40] will run from 2031 to 2039 and

[4:05:45] that's due to the state well it

[4:05:46] needs to be certified by the

[4:05:48] state prior to january 31st

[4:05:50] of 2031. You know big picture

[4:05:53] land use planning like this and

[4:05:56] the type of decisions that are

[4:05:57] needed to support a housing

[4:05:59] element at this scale can't

[4:06:01] just be done the last minute.

[4:06:03] really what we're looking at is

[4:06:04] major general plan amendments,

[4:06:05] zoning changes, environmental

[4:06:07] review as well as

[4:06:08] infrastructure planning and all

[4:06:10] of the community engagement

[4:06:11] that needs to happen

[4:06:12] sequentially. And so that's why

[4:06:14] we're undertaking this review

[4:06:15] right now at the midpoint

[4:06:17] between those two housing

[4:06:18] elements. So we're just trying

[4:06:21] to give you a sense of the

[4:06:22] overall timeline and put

[4:06:24] today's decision in perspective

[4:06:26] of the current housing element.

[4:06:28] establish those commitments

[4:06:29] that I spoke to council that

[4:06:31] approved the scope of the full

[4:06:33] year review in june of 2025. It

[4:06:36] was a reduced scope and

[4:06:38] direction and also included

[4:06:40] using the planning commission

[4:06:42] as the task force for this

[4:06:43] particular four year review

[4:06:45] which is different from the two

[4:06:46] prior iterations that we had

[4:06:48] completed and then we proceeded

[4:06:50] to have them meet in that

[4:06:51] compressed timeline between

[4:06:54] october of 2025 and june

[4:06:55] of 2026. So today is council is

[4:06:59] considering that policy

[4:07:00] framework as you then provide

[4:07:02] us direction we'll begin the

[4:07:04] environmental review process,

[4:07:06] prepare all of the

[4:07:07] documentation and zoning

[4:07:08] amendments, the general plan

[4:07:09] amendments and then develop the

[4:07:11] actual program standards while

[4:07:14] continuing to engage with the

[4:07:16] public through the fall of 2027

[4:07:18] we anticipate to be back in

[4:07:20] full in front of council

[4:07:21] probably by december of 2027

[4:07:24] with the actual decisions the

[4:07:26] proposed amendments I'm sorry.

[4:07:29] yes. By december 27th and that

[4:07:31] work will help us establish the

[4:07:33] land use foundation for that

[4:07:34] next housing element. And so

[4:07:36] the reason that we're targeting

[4:07:38] 2027 is our last housing

[4:07:39] element took us approximately

[4:07:41] two and a half years to

[4:07:42] complete and then we have an

[4:07:44] additional sort of work with

[4:07:45] hpd to actually get that done

[4:07:48] and over the goal line before

[4:07:49] january of 31. So this process

[4:07:52] very much has a beginning, very

[4:07:53] much has a middle and an ending

[4:07:55] and right now we're kind of in

[4:07:56] that middle phase. So just to

[4:08:00] review the scope that council

[4:08:01] gave us and we stuck fairly

[4:08:04] well within that scope it did

[4:08:06] expand slightly but first we

[4:08:08] wanted to look at increasing

[4:08:09] the residential capacity so the

[4:08:11] current general plan plan for

[4:08:12] about 120,000 residential units

[4:08:15] the 62,000 units in the current

[4:08:17] housing element pretty much

[4:08:18] got us there on the total

[4:08:19] capacity. So that we know by

[4:08:21] 2031 we're going to have to

[4:08:23] identify additional units

[4:08:25] throughout the city to meet the

[4:08:26] state's goals. Secondly, the

[4:08:29] scope was intended to help us

[4:08:30] maintain an appropriate balance

[4:08:32] between the number of jobs in

[4:08:33] the city as well as the

[4:08:34] employed residents. That's a

[4:08:36] core element of our general

[4:08:38] plan and then third and fourth

[4:08:41] with the two commitments that

[4:08:43] we made in the prior housing

[4:08:44] element. So firstly that small

[4:08:46] multifamily housing program and

[4:08:48] then lastly updating our urban

[4:08:50] village strategy which was a

[4:08:51] commitment under program 40 and

[4:08:55] the housing element. And so

[4:08:56] each of these elements really

[4:08:58] addressed a different part

[4:08:59] of san jose's long term growth

[4:09:00] strategy and the common

[4:09:02] question throughout is how the

[4:09:04] city can accommodate its

[4:09:05] housing obligations while

[4:09:06] continuing to plan for the

[4:09:08] infrastructure, employment

[4:09:10] services and complete

[4:09:12] neighborhoods that we aspire

[4:09:14] to. So the recommendations were

[4:09:18] developed through that

[4:09:19] taskforce process. We included

[4:09:21] the community and stakeholder

[4:09:22] outreach. Obviously staff is

[4:09:24] heavily involved with our

[4:09:25] analysis and then that's

[4:09:27] brought forward through the

[4:09:28] planning commission for their

[4:09:29] consideration. It's really the

[4:09:31] planning commission's

[4:09:32] recommendation based on the

[4:09:33] taskforce recommendation that

[4:09:35] we're presenting today.

[4:09:37] obviously the planning

[4:09:38] commission wasn't asked about

[4:09:39] final ordinance language. We

[4:09:41] didn't get into details on many

[4:09:43] of these programs. It was

[4:09:44] really recommending the

[4:09:45] structure of the framework that

[4:09:47] staff can then use to begin

[4:09:49] preparing all of the language

[4:09:50] that will come back later that

[4:09:53] the same is true for council's

[4:09:54] action today and that framework

[4:09:55] really establish all of the

[4:09:57] issues that we need to analyze.

[4:10:00] it certainly doesn't settle

[4:10:01] every one of the design

[4:10:02] standards or the geographic

[4:10:04] considerations or even the

[4:10:05] development requirements that

[4:10:07] we expect to come from this

[4:10:08] work. Those details will, you

[4:10:10] know, really determine both the

[4:10:12] effects of the program on local

[4:10:13] neighborhoods as well as

[4:10:15] whether it's likely to abuse

[4:10:16] the housing that we are trying

[4:10:18] to achieve and that work all

[4:10:20] really still lies ahead. Okay.

[4:10:23] so I did want to touch very

[4:10:24] briefly on kind of where the

[4:10:26] planning commission landed on

[4:10:27] their recommendations. So the

[4:10:29] planning commission recommended

[4:10:30] moving forward with staff

[4:10:32] changes to the several general

[4:10:34] plan density ranges the land

[4:10:36] use changes along the alameda

[4:10:38] and on certain mixed use

[4:10:40] commercial sites and sb 1333

[4:10:43] sites that we identified. They

[4:10:47] forwarded the recommendation

[4:10:48] of a framework for public

[4:10:49] public quayside public lands

[4:10:52] throughout the city as well as

[4:10:54] the update to the urban village

[4:10:56] strategy and the small

[4:10:57] multifamily program. They also

[4:10:59] agreed with staff's

[4:11:01] recommendation to maintain the

[4:11:02] current jobs to employed

[4:11:03] residents ratio target of 1.1.

[4:11:08] so that's 1.1 jobs for every

[4:11:11] employed resident. The

[4:11:12] commission voted separately.

[4:11:14] next slide on an individual

[4:11:18] items sorry on that previous

[4:11:21] one. And when the commission

[4:11:23] voted they actually took all

[4:11:24] of the items individually and

[4:11:26] voted on each one. So just

[4:11:28] wanted to note that on the

[4:11:30] small multifamily program the

[4:11:32] commission voted 9 to 2

[4:11:34] recommend approval of that.

[4:11:36] they did not they were not able

[4:11:39] to get to a majority

[4:11:40] recommendation on the proposed

[4:11:42] winchester boulevard land use

[4:11:43] changes. Therefore council has

[4:11:46] the staff recommendation that

[4:11:48] was presented to the task force

[4:11:50] and the planning commission and

[4:11:52] then obviously there are

[4:11:53] alternatives described in the

[4:11:55] memorandum from the

[4:11:56] councilmembers. Okay. So I

[4:11:58] wanted to spend the majority

[4:12:00] of our time just discussing the

[4:12:01] small multifamily housing

[4:12:03] program because obviously this

[4:12:06] is the portion of the work

[4:12:07] that's really garnered the

[4:12:09] greatest public interest at its

[4:12:13] most basic version missing

[4:12:14] middle housing refers to

[4:12:16] housing forms somewhere between

[4:12:18] a detached single family home

[4:12:20] and a larger apartment building

[4:12:22] and that may include, you know,

[4:12:24] different types of housing such

[4:12:25] as duplexes fourplex townhomes

[4:12:28] or even sort of small apartment

[4:12:30] buildings on larger lots. But

[4:12:33] it's really designed at a

[4:12:34] neighborhood scale, right? It's

[4:12:36] intended to integrate with

[4:12:37] existing neighborhoods. The

[4:12:39] policy objective is to really

[4:12:41] create more housing choices in

[4:12:43] parts of the city where those

[4:12:44] choices are limited somewhat

[4:12:45] today. But obviously how we

[4:12:47] create these standards has a

[4:12:49] significant impact on the

[4:12:50] outcomes for individual

[4:12:52] properties and then the

[4:12:53] surrounding neighborhoods in

[4:12:54] those areas. The final number

[4:12:56] of units on an individual

[4:12:58] property can certainly be

[4:12:59] affected by a number of things

[4:13:01] that include parcel size, you

[4:13:03] know adu requirements and laws,

[4:13:05] density bonus law, how

[4:13:07] properties are subdivided and

[4:13:09] then there are other state

[4:13:10] requirements that we have as a

[4:13:11] consideration. I do want to

[4:13:13] assure the council that you

[4:13:14] know we've tried to be really

[4:13:15] candid about that throughout

[4:13:17] our outreach with the public

[4:13:18] and throughout the task force

[4:13:19] process and as we develop these

[4:13:21] programs. So again, just a note

[4:13:25] and you know I'm sure we'll

[4:13:27] touch on this more as we get

[4:13:28] into questions. Our small

[4:13:30] multifamily housing program is

[4:13:32] not in new obligation. You

[4:13:34] know, this is not the first

[4:13:35] time we introduced it through

[4:13:36] this process. P35 is the

[4:13:38] program in our housing element

[4:13:41] and I just wanted to sort

[4:13:42] of bring this up as a reference

[4:13:43] not only did we include it in

[4:13:45] housing element but it was also

[4:13:48] referenced heavily in the

[4:13:50] certification letter that we

[4:13:51] received from hpd that you

[4:13:54] know, really noted the creation

[4:13:55] of this program as an important

[4:13:56] move for san jose and its

[4:13:58] housing element and the

[4:14:01] included program contemplated

[4:14:04] as written at least four and up

[4:14:06] to ten units in locations

[4:14:08] throughout the city. Those

[4:14:10] commitments don't prescribe

[4:14:11] every detail in the final

[4:14:12] ordinance. They do mean that as

[4:14:14] a city we must develop a

[4:14:15] program that is legally

[4:14:17] adequate and reasonably capable

[4:14:19] of being used to meet those

[4:14:21] obligations and commitments in

[4:14:22] the housing element a program

[4:14:24] that purely exists on paper and

[4:14:26] produces no meaningful new

[4:14:28] housing would not satisfy the

[4:14:32] housing element for the

[4:14:32] purposes of cdw's review and

[4:14:35] that does represent a

[4:14:36] compliance risk which we

[4:14:38] believe is significant in

[4:14:39] recent conversations that we've

[4:14:41] had with the state. Failure to

[4:14:44] implement our commitments in

[4:14:45] the certified housing element

[4:14:46] could expose the city to

[4:14:48] financial penalties and

[4:14:50] potential impacts on our

[4:14:51] ability to approve certain

[4:14:52] permits and ultimately the

[4:14:54] possibility of decertifying our

[4:14:56] housing element and the

[4:14:57] reopening of the city to build

[4:14:59] as remedy applications. You

[4:15:02] know that's not something that

[4:15:03] oecd takes lightly. It's also

[4:15:05] not something that would be

[4:15:06] immediate but it is something

[4:15:09] that we've seen as you know, a

[4:15:10] tool that they've used with

[4:15:12] other communities throughout

[4:15:13] california. I just want to be

[4:15:16] clear the council does have

[4:15:17] discretion in you know,

[4:15:19] designing this program but that

[4:15:21] discretion needs to be in the

[4:15:22] context of clear understanding

[4:15:23] that not all the alternatives

[4:15:25] carry equal compliance risk.

[4:15:28] okay. The other thing that I

[4:15:29] think is really important that

[4:15:30] we've been trying to highlight

[4:15:32] through this process is to

[4:15:33] recognize the existing

[4:15:35] condition that we face today

[4:15:37] which is not simply one home on

[4:15:39] every residential parcel over

[4:15:42] the past seven years we've seen

[4:15:43] over 450 bills passed by the

[4:15:45] state that impact our ability

[4:15:47] and the way we approve housing.

[4:15:50] our workers transition

[4:15:52] significantly in that period

[4:15:55] and the state has really

[4:15:55] changed what can occur

[4:15:57] throughout the city. So some

[4:15:58] of the most important bills

[4:16:00] that we deal with in single

[4:16:01] family neighborhoods include

[4:16:03] senate bill nine which allows

[4:16:04] for a qualifying residential

[4:16:06] parcel to accommodate either a

[4:16:08] duplex can be subdivided into

[4:16:10] two parcels or a combination

[4:16:13] that could result in as many as

[4:16:14] four primary units on the

[4:16:16] existing single family lot.

[4:16:18] senate bill 1123 creates

[4:16:21] additional subdivision

[4:16:22] opportunities on either a

[4:16:23] vacant parcel or that's been

[4:16:25] extended to include where you

[4:16:26] can subdivide off the existing

[4:16:28] home and the remainder of the

[4:16:30] lot could accommodate up to ten

[4:16:32] parcels. And then we also have

[4:16:35] adu laws that allow allow

[4:16:37] additional units beyond the

[4:16:38] sort of base density and state

[4:16:40] density bonus laws which can

[4:16:42] increase allowable density and

[4:16:43] provide as we saw in the

[4:16:45] previous project a series

[4:16:46] of waivers from some of our

[4:16:48] local development standards and

[4:16:51] those laws apply whether or not

[4:16:52] san jose creates this program.

[4:16:55] the question is therefore

[4:16:56] really not whether resident

[4:16:59] residential neighborhoods will

[4:17:01] ever change. Some changes

[4:17:03] already permitted by and

[4:17:04] occurring under those existing

[4:17:06] state laws. You know, I think

[4:17:08] what we're trying to do with

[4:17:10] our approach is create a local

[4:17:12] pathway that produces housing

[4:17:14] in a more coordinate gated and

[4:17:16] predictable physical form with

[4:17:19] objective standards that

[4:17:20] address things like height

[4:17:21] setbacks, lock coverage, open

[4:17:24] space privacy access, all

[4:17:26] of those other sort

[4:17:27] of neighborhood conditions that

[4:17:28] can remain within our control

[4:17:30] as we design our own program

[4:17:32] versus being subject to those

[4:17:34] state laws. You know choosing

[4:17:36] not to develop a local program

[4:17:38] doesn't necessarily preserve

[4:17:39] the status quo. I think that's

[4:17:40] the point we're ultimately

[4:17:41] trying to make and we are

[4:17:43] certainly seeing a number

[4:17:44] of these outcomes where

[4:17:45] applicants are coming in and

[4:17:47] layering various state laws in

[4:17:49] different ways to maximize

[4:17:51] their opportunity. So it's

[4:17:54] going to touch a little bit on

[4:17:55] density. I apologize that this

[4:17:57] slide the text is a little

[4:17:58] small. We can certainly dive

[4:18:01] into the details but our

[4:18:02] initial recommendation was to

[4:18:04] evaluate an increase across the

[4:18:06] residential neighborhood

[4:18:07] designation to go from eight

[4:18:10] units per acre to 32 dwelling

[4:18:12] units per acre. So a typical

[4:18:15] residential parcel throughout

[4:18:16] san jose is somewhere between 5

[4:18:20] and 6000ft². So if you see on

[4:18:22] this chart between 3000 and

[4:18:24] 8000ft² you've got 84% of all

[4:18:27] single family residential

[4:18:28] parcels throughout the city. So

[4:18:31] really what we're aiming for is

[4:18:32] to raise that that base density

[4:18:36] to allow for units on the vast

[4:18:38] majority of parcels. I do want

[4:18:40] to acknowledge as you'll see

[4:18:41] at the bottom of that chart

[4:18:42] that state adu requirements can

[4:18:44] affect the potential total

[4:18:45] number of units and we also

[4:18:47] deal with state density bonus

[4:18:49] on certain lots that requires

[4:18:51] more units to start with but

[4:18:53] that can affect the number

[4:18:55] further for qualifying

[4:18:56] projects. But ultimately when

[4:18:58] you think about the vast

[4:19:00] majority of parcels throughout

[4:19:01] the city size constraints for

[4:19:04] primary units you know will

[4:19:07] ultimately limit how how they

[4:19:08] will build out and what we will

[4:19:10] ultimately see in these areas

[4:19:13] beyond that number, obviously

[4:19:15] there's a lot of work to be

[4:19:16] done around development

[4:19:17] standards so how can people

[4:19:18] actually build and I think this

[4:19:20] is the crux of the discussion

[4:19:22] is these are the things that we

[4:19:23] are able to implement as a city

[4:19:25] under our program and have a

[4:19:27] little bit more control. You

[4:19:28] know density is only the one

[4:19:29] part of the program. It's the

[4:19:31] standards that will largely

[4:19:33] determine what housing looks

[4:19:34] like and feels like on the

[4:19:35] ground. The current framework

[4:19:38] would retain the existing

[4:19:40] height limit in residential

[4:19:41] neighborhood which is 35ft.

[4:19:43] right now that provision is for

[4:19:45] two and a half stories. We

[4:19:46] would change that to three

[4:19:48] stories. Two and a half means a

[4:19:49] split level home can

[4:19:51] essentially said the same

[4:19:52] height. This allows you to use

[4:19:55] that height more effectively to

[4:19:56] use three stories and I have

[4:19:58] some examples I'll show in a

[4:20:00] moment just what that means. We

[4:20:02] also develop objective

[4:20:03] standards for setbacks floor

[4:20:05] area ratio, things like lock

[4:20:07] coverage, parcel size whether

[4:20:09] or not we allow a lot mergers

[4:20:11] you know some of the provisions

[4:20:12] around historic properties and

[4:20:14] other physical design

[4:20:15] considerations and obviously

[4:20:17] we've heard a lot about parking

[4:20:19] as a concern as well from

[4:20:22] staff's perspective. We began

[4:20:24] with the city's current

[4:20:25] citywide policy which is we

[4:20:26] currently do not have a minimum

[4:20:28] parking requirement but you

[4:20:30] know, hearing not just from the

[4:20:32] task force but from community

[4:20:34] members and certainly some

[4:20:36] of the memos that we've seen

[4:20:37] from the city council, you

[4:20:39] know, that is one of the things

[4:20:40] that we want to bring into that

[4:20:41] consideration. You know, there

[4:20:44] are certain state laws that

[4:20:45] impact our ability to implement

[4:20:47] parking minimums across the

[4:20:49] city and there's portions

[4:20:51] of the city where because

[4:20:52] of its proximity to transit

[4:20:53] access we will not be able to

[4:20:55] institute new parking minimums.

[4:20:57] but there are parts of the city

[4:20:58] that we can consider that. I

[4:21:00] think just overall in creating

[4:21:02] these programs we just need to

[4:21:03] be mindful of balancing the

[4:21:05] objectives to preserve

[4:21:07] community character which is

[4:21:08] really how we're approaching

[4:21:09] this against standards that are

[4:21:11] so restrictive that parcels

[4:21:13] can't be built at all because

[4:21:14] we know will run afoul of hpd

[4:21:16] on that the work between now

[4:21:19] and 2027 is really finding that

[4:21:20] balance and a program that the

[4:21:23] market could actually use you

[4:21:25] know, with the strongest

[4:21:26] locally enforceable standards

[4:21:28] that we can reasonably

[4:21:28] establish. We also need to look

[4:21:31] sort of beyond the individual

[4:21:33] parcel, you know, and think

[4:21:35] about some of the bigger

[4:21:36] issues. And again I think this

[4:21:37] relates to the prior

[4:21:38] conversation. So as we see

[4:21:40] residential capacity increase

[4:21:41] throughout the city, we need to

[4:21:43] consider cumulative effects on

[4:21:45] transportation, on utilities,

[4:21:47] parks, schools, emergency

[4:21:49] response as well as other

[4:21:51] infrastructure. And again

[4:21:52] that's much of the work that

[4:21:53] occurs between now and the end

[4:21:55] of 2027 and we also want to

[4:21:58] make sure that we're evaluating

[4:22:00] whether other general plan

[4:22:02] policies ensure that new

[4:22:04] development can reasonably

[4:22:05] contribute to the services and

[4:22:06] infrastructure that the

[4:22:08] residents will need. Okay. So I

[4:22:12] just wanted to highlight just a

[4:22:13] couple of examples. Now these

[4:22:14] are examples in san jose.

[4:22:16] they're not currently in

[4:22:17] residential neighborhood

[4:22:18] because this is the change

[4:22:19] we're proposing but there are

[4:22:21] adjacent to existing single

[4:22:23] family neighborhoods so this

[4:22:25] property is 39 lester avenue.

[4:22:27] this is a 40 500 square foot

[4:22:29] parcel. There's three units

[4:22:31] they have four parking spaces.

[4:22:33] the height of this building is

[4:22:34] actually just above right? So

[4:22:36] you know, this is again not in

[4:22:38] a residential neighborhood so

[4:22:40] you know, standards wouldn't

[4:22:41] allow this. It would be

[4:22:42] slightly lower. But so the

[4:22:44] density of what this project is

[4:22:46] is about 30 units to the acre

[4:22:48] right now. So it just gives you

[4:22:49] a sense of the scale of that

[4:22:51] type of development. The next

[4:22:53] example this is on park avenue

[4:22:56] at 1945 park. Again we sort

[4:22:58] of took a slightly zoomed out

[4:22:59] version and you can kind of see

[4:23:01] how the lot relates to the

[4:23:02] surrounding area. This is a

[4:23:05] larger lot. This is almost an

[4:23:06] 8000 foot lot and again, you

[4:23:09] know the market's coming in to

[4:23:10] really dictate how they

[4:23:12] approach development on these

[4:23:13] in this instance it's a three

[4:23:15] unit project so this is you

[4:23:17] know, lower this is 17 units to

[4:23:19] the acre but this is what the

[4:23:21] developer at the time felt like

[4:23:23] was applicable. I think just

[4:23:25] the important thing as we talk

[4:23:26] about those standards the

[4:23:27] difference between two and a

[4:23:28] half stories and three stories

[4:23:30] is the three stories allow that

[4:23:32] parking to be on the ground

[4:23:33] floor, right? And then you get

[4:23:35] two livable stories above it.

[4:23:37] and so that's how it's being

[4:23:38] accommodated in that

[4:23:39] configuration. Those are

[4:23:40] separate so I just wanted to

[4:23:44] finish on some next steps and

[4:23:46] our timeline I think for the

[4:23:50] next I know you could if

[4:23:52] council provides direction

[4:23:53] today staff will prepare draft

[4:23:55] general plan amendments, zoning

[4:23:58] ordinance changes objective

[4:23:59] development standards and

[4:24:01] environmental analysis will

[4:24:03] continue to do engagement with

[4:24:04] the community with residents as

[4:24:06] well as property owners,

[4:24:08] housing advocates, developers,

[4:24:09] neighborhood organizations and

[4:24:11] other affected stakeholders.

[4:24:13] when this work returns in 2027,

[4:24:15] council will have the actual

[4:24:17] proposed policy language and we

[4:24:19] will be looking for

[4:24:20] opportunities to engage with

[4:24:21] committee and council in

[4:24:23] advance of that we'll also have

[4:24:25] the environmental analysis and

[4:24:27] the results of additional

[4:24:28] outreach and a clearer

[4:24:29] understanding of the kind

[4:24:31] of legal, physical and economic

[4:24:33] implications of the

[4:24:34] alternatives. And really that's

[4:24:35] the point when council will

[4:24:37] decide what to adopt. The

[4:24:39] additional constraint I do just

[4:24:41] want to touch on and then I'm

[4:24:42] going to talk a little bit

[4:24:43] about some of the memos that

[4:24:45] council put forward is

[4:24:47] obviously the other

[4:24:49] consideration we have as we

[4:24:51] go into the next phase

[4:24:53] of development is staff

[4:24:54] capacity. You know we have this

[4:24:56] tight time frame and we're

[4:24:58] working towards that formal

[4:25:00] consideration in december of 27

[4:25:02] and the work you know has to

[4:25:04] position the city to begin

[4:25:05] preparing that next housing

[4:25:07] element as we've previously

[4:25:09] discussed, our citywide

[4:25:11] planning capacity is limited.

[4:25:12] we'll be back in front

[4:25:13] of council on october 6th so a

[4:25:17] little over a month to review

[4:25:20] the work plan and talk about

[4:25:21] priorities and so we'll be

[4:25:22] taking all of the work that

[4:25:24] council directs today and

[4:25:26] wrapping it into that analysis

[4:25:28] so we can just show kind

[4:25:29] of where all of that sits. So

[4:25:31] you know, we just want to

[4:25:32] highlight that as we think

[4:25:33] about the different

[4:25:34] alternatives and as we look

[4:25:35] at different things to study

[4:25:36] and evaluate like all of that

[4:25:38] kind of goes into those

[4:25:40] aspects. So we did just want to

[4:25:42] touch briefly on the memos that

[4:25:44] we received from the city

[4:25:46] council just to kind

[4:25:47] of highlight some of the pieces

[4:25:48] in there. So firstly the memo

[4:25:51] from the mayor,

[4:25:53] councilmember campos cohen, the

[4:25:55] vice mayor and

[4:25:56] councilmember casey, you know,

[4:25:58] I think there's a number of the

[4:26:00] recommendations here absolutely

[4:26:01] we can accommodate within the

[4:26:02] analysis such as the parking

[4:26:04] minimums, the reference to the

[4:26:07] pickup work and then the

[4:26:09] neighborhood serving commercial

[4:26:11] and some of the considerations

[4:26:12] there. The two things that we

[4:26:14] just wanted to touch on

[4:26:15] obviously as I was just noting

[4:26:17] on capacity to the extent that

[4:26:19] we could have you know, very

[4:26:20] broad on our ranges that's

[4:26:23] additional analysis that we

[4:26:25] have to do so does potentially

[4:26:26] impact our timeline. We did

[4:26:29] talk to aicd earlier this week

[4:26:33] and I can dive in a little bit

[4:26:34] more about some of those

[4:26:35] conversations but I think one

[4:26:37] of our considerations from that

[4:26:38] conversation is that 16 when

[4:26:41] you think about an 8000 foot

[4:26:43] lot right now gets you a single

[4:26:45] unit at eight to the acre if

[4:26:48] you do a lot split under sb

[4:26:50] nine that's essentially 16 to

[4:26:52] the acre. And so aicd confirmed

[4:26:54] that that they're understanding

[4:26:55] the 16 to the eight doesn't

[4:26:57] really significantly move us

[4:26:58] forward so that would be a

[4:27:00] concern just as a risk as we

[4:27:02] think about that. The other was

[4:27:05] the recommendation around the

[4:27:06] cottle road, the south side

[4:27:07] community center. This is just

[4:27:09] a technical note that will

[4:27:10] bring back in the analysis the

[4:27:12] community center in the fire

[4:27:14] station are on the same parcel.

[4:27:16] so we would just recommend

[4:27:17] keeping the fire station as

[4:27:18] peaky otherwise we're fine with

[4:27:21] that one. Next up I just wanted

[4:27:23] to reference quickly the

[4:27:24] accounts the memo from

[4:27:25] councilmembers ken dallas ortiz

[4:27:27] and mulcahy. And so again I

[4:27:30] think the conversation around

[4:27:32] the second general plan

[4:27:34] amendment cycle is something we

[4:27:35] can accommodate and the

[4:27:37] discussion around the mixed use

[4:27:39] commercial sites around west

[4:27:41] san carlos is consistent with

[4:27:43] the staff approach obviously

[4:27:45] you know I'm sure we'll have a

[4:27:46] conversation around the mixed

[4:27:50] use neighborhood sites and

[4:27:53] around the corry neighborhood.

[4:27:56] I think you know councilmember

[4:27:57] little katie, you know you've

[4:27:59] put forward your recommendation

[4:28:00] through this memo as we think

[4:28:03] about that, you know the net

[4:28:05] unit yield on those sites is

[4:28:08] relatively low. So just being

[4:28:09] mindful of, you know, the

[4:28:11] benefit of maintaining some

[4:28:12] of the commercial right versus

[4:28:14] going to smaller projects as

[4:28:19] far as the streamlined process

[4:28:20] around steps on peak plans,

[4:28:23] that's something we would refer

[4:28:24] to the budget process obviously

[4:28:26] as a cost recovery department

[4:28:28] we don't have the ability to

[4:28:29] reduce fees in any way so

[4:28:31] council would have to

[4:28:32] supplement that program with

[4:28:33] additional money to support

[4:28:35] those applications. And then

[4:28:37] lastly sort of ground up on

[4:28:39] this one I apologize. I do want

[4:28:41] to touch on the recommendation

[4:28:42] about geographic exclusions. I

[4:28:45] think you know, certainly we'd

[4:28:47] been considering the impact on

[4:28:48] fire severity zones and it's

[4:28:50] something we're very mindful

[4:28:52] of and sort of you know,

[4:28:53] expanding that and being really

[4:28:54] careful about how we plan that

[4:28:56] is something we definitely want

[4:28:57] to accommodate. I do want to

[4:28:59] talk about the areas with

[4:29:01] medical high vmt, the planned

[4:29:04] development areas as well as

[4:29:06] the area specific plans. The

[4:29:08] challenge we run into with

[4:29:09] limiting geography is that p35

[4:29:13] in the housing element

[4:29:14] explicitly called out high

[4:29:15] resource areas and we talk

[4:29:17] about this and we can happily

[4:29:19] go into more details but I did

[4:29:20] want to just show a map of our

[4:29:21] high resource areas and so the

[4:29:23] very dark blue and the sort

[4:29:25] of teal color that doesn't come

[4:29:27] through very well in the screen

[4:29:28] but the darker colors are our

[4:29:30] high resource areas and they

[4:29:31] tend to align with many

[4:29:33] of those geographic exclusions.

[4:29:35] and so we feel that, you know,

[4:29:37] there's a potential for us to

[4:29:38] run afoul of the intent of the

[4:29:40] program to provide those

[4:29:42] opportunities in high resource

[4:29:43] areas if we start to exclude

[4:29:45] them through some of these

[4:29:46] geographical exemptions. And

[4:29:49] then the memo from

[4:29:52] councilmember committee and to

[4:29:52] rios, I think for the most

[4:29:54] part, you know, we can

[4:29:56] absolutely accommodate this in

[4:29:57] the analysis we did just want

[4:29:59] to point out that the work with

[4:30:00] idr is actually we actually

[4:30:01] have language included in the

[4:30:03] pledge priorities around

[4:30:05] density bonus law. It's an

[4:30:06] issue that we've run up against

[4:30:08] recently. I did also want to

[4:30:10] acknowledge the memo from

[4:30:12] councilmember dwan. Obviously

[4:30:13] there's less of a focus for

[4:30:15] city work for staff work and

[4:30:17] that's obviously more of a

[4:30:18] conversation for city council

[4:30:20] as far as deferring the

[4:30:21] discussion. So there's a lot

[4:30:23] there certainly there's a lot

[4:30:25] more detail that we're happy to

[4:30:27] go into as a part of the

[4:30:28] discussion and so staff's

[4:30:30] available for questions. Thank

[4:30:33] you chris. Just as I turn to

[4:30:35] toni to begin public comment, I

[4:30:36] believe we have over 100

[4:30:39] comment cards in the chamber

[4:30:40] and likely over 100 online. So

[4:30:43] even at a minute per speaker

[4:30:45] we're going to be here for a

[4:30:46] while. So again, I want to

[4:30:47] thank you all for your time,

[4:30:50] your participation. This is

[4:30:53] this is democracy. I think it's

[4:30:55] great. I do want to note that I

[4:30:58] know folks are going to be are

[4:31:00] going to want to cheer and boo

[4:31:01] and again, that's just going to

[4:31:02] slow us down and force us to

[4:31:04] stop and ask for order in the

[4:31:06] chamber. So I'd ask that you

[4:31:07] help us move efficiently

[4:31:08] through what may be 2 or 3

[4:31:10] hours of public comment. Toni,

[4:31:13] please I'll turn to you >> as a

[4:31:15] reminder speakers must comply

[4:31:17] with the city's code of conduct

[4:31:18] for public meetings. Please

[4:31:19] direct comments to the body

[4:31:20] limit remarks to the agenda

[4:31:22] item and observe the time limit

[4:31:24] conduct that materially

[4:31:25] disrupts the meeting or

[4:31:26] interferes with others ability

[4:31:27] to participate may result in

[4:31:29] muting or removal as authorized

[4:31:30] by law. I have 118 cards in

[4:31:35] person I have not looked I have

[4:31:39] 16 hands are up so far 119

[4:31:42] people online. I'm going to

[4:31:44] call between 20 and 30 names in

[4:31:47] person. Then I'll bump over

[4:31:48] online and call a few names

[4:31:50] there and then I'll go back and

[4:31:52] forth with the larger group

[4:31:54] being the in person if you want

[4:31:57] to speak and then exit we ask

[4:31:59] you to exit quietly because

[4:32:01] there's so many speakers we

[4:32:02] don't want the people at the

[4:32:03] end of the queue to have to

[4:32:04] wait extra time because we need

[4:32:06] to quiet people down. Thank

[4:32:08] you. So in the order that we

[4:32:10] received your cards larry james

[4:32:12] come on down robert. Robert

[4:32:16] squirrel doug andre kristen

[4:32:22] brasi, jim wendling and michael

[4:32:26] schumacher. Come on down larry

[4:32:38] james are larry and larry

[4:32:40] james. Yes. Thank you very

[4:32:43] much. Yeah, I stood up when you

[4:32:44] were five. It's confusing

[4:32:49] my ready to go I start. Hello

[4:32:51] mayor. Man and sound of the

[4:32:53] city council. Thank you for

[4:32:54] having me and thank you very

[4:32:55] much for your dedicated

[4:32:56] service. This is a very

[4:32:57] important issue to

[4:32:58] me personally. I am larry

[4:33:00] james. I'm a resident of the

[4:33:02] city of santa clara. I am a

[4:33:04] small business owner currently

[4:33:05] launching a startup called the

[4:33:07] always outdoorsman. I think

[4:33:09] this issue is extremely

[4:33:10] important because number one I

[4:33:12] have a very large concern about

[4:33:15] the lack of affordable housing

[4:33:17] as a percentage of the total

[4:33:19] that the state is imposing on

[4:33:20] the cities. Right. Is it 2% or

[4:33:22] I don't know what it is but

[4:33:25] okay, it's higher than that.

[4:33:25] but whatever it's not enough,

[4:33:27] right? We don't have enough

[4:33:28] affordable housing and that is

[4:33:29] the crisis right? So I would

[4:33:31] urge the city of san jose to

[4:33:34] make sure that you are using

[4:33:36] your properties that are

[4:33:37] available to you and build

[4:33:39] large complex as much as

[4:33:41] possible. Right. So that you're

[4:33:43] centralizing you know you want

[4:33:45] to build these smart cities and

[4:33:47] what whatever you're doing and

[4:33:48] I think that's great but what

[4:33:50] really concerns me >> I'm sorry

[4:33:54] that your time >> that's okay.

[4:33:57] I'll keep an eye on this. Yeah.

[4:34:00] next speaker okay. Good

[4:34:03] evening. My name is rob. I'm a

[4:34:04] principal planner at vta. We

[4:34:07] submitted a comment letter on

[4:34:08] friday. It's included in packet

[4:34:10] seven of the public comment

[4:34:12] just to reiterate whittier

[4:34:14] urges the city council to adopt

[4:34:15] the framework recommended by

[4:34:17] the planning commission

[4:34:18] including the recommendation in

[4:34:19] the small multifamily category

[4:34:21] to increase the density of our

[4:34:22] end to 32 units to the acre.

[4:34:25] vta also notes the city set a

[4:34:27] progressive direction in 2012

[4:34:29] excuse me 2022 of adopting a

[4:34:31] transit first policy as well as

[4:34:33] removing minimum parking

[4:34:34] requirements and we encourage

[4:34:36] the city council to build on

[4:34:38] those previous policies with

[4:34:40] this general plan for a review.

[4:34:42] and finally we would like to

[4:34:44] continue to work with the city

[4:34:46] city staff to look for a path

[4:34:48] for allowing residential mixed

[4:34:49] use and the vta sereny and

[4:34:52] santa teresa and sites. Thank

[4:34:54] you very much. >> thank you.

[4:34:56] next speaker matt larson and

[4:34:59] michael young come on down.

[4:35:02] yes, my name is jim wendling.

[4:35:04] I've lived here in san jose for

[4:35:05] over seven years and we have

[4:35:09] moved into our third house as

[4:35:11] we've moved up from our starter

[4:35:12] house and the house and our

[4:35:15] we're in our third house and

[4:35:17] it's a very nice single family

[4:35:19] residential area and what I see

[4:35:21] is a risk to people like us

[4:35:24] from what's happening and I

[4:35:25] know we need more housing but

[4:35:27] it's not clear what direction

[4:35:28] you're going in will provide

[4:35:30] more truly affordable housing.

[4:35:32] but when I heard the situation

[4:35:35] that was discussed before us

[4:35:37] today and you approved 1210 or

[4:35:39] 11 and nothing for something

[4:35:42] that had potential hazards and

[4:35:45] driving conditions right there

[4:35:48] and then you're going to check

[4:35:49] later to see if it worked out

[4:35:51] okay. I know you don't like

[4:35:53] doing those kinds of things.

[4:35:55] you'd rather be doing other

[4:35:56] things but we're going to

[4:35:59] go into a world where if you

[4:36:00] approve what's promoted thank

[4:36:03] >> you that your time next

[4:36:06] speaker no. Mayor >> mehan

[4:36:15] council members my name is

[4:36:16] michael young, member of the

[4:36:18] planning commission. I'm

[4:36:19] speaking to you today as a

[4:36:21] private citizen. What these

[4:36:25] proposals are is what kind of a

[4:36:27] city we want to have going >>

[4:36:28] forward. Do we want to have a

[4:36:30] city that's only affordable for

[4:36:32] people who work in tech and

[4:36:33] people like myself who've been

[4:36:35] here a long time or do we want

[4:36:36] to have a city that's

[4:36:37] affordable for working people?

[4:36:40] that's what this is about. We

[4:36:41] need to increase the supply

[4:36:43] of rental multifamily

[4:36:44] properties, increasing density

[4:36:47] in our single family

[4:36:48] neighborhoods is the best way

[4:36:49] >> to do that. You know, just a

[4:36:56] reminder we will remove people

[4:36:58] from the chamber if they're

[4:36:59] disrupting the meeting this

[4:37:01] individual gets his minute

[4:37:03] of public comment and his free

[4:37:04] speech his first amendment

[4:37:05] rights like everybody else. Can

[4:37:07] we please rewind the clock to

[4:37:09] where we pause and begin? Thank

[4:37:11] you. Go ahead, sir. Thank >>

[4:37:13] you. Mayor meehan. What I

[4:37:16] learned from my parents is much

[4:37:18] who are given much is expected.

[4:37:21] so I feel as a >> resident in a

[4:37:24] single family neighborhood I

[4:37:26] need to give back and the best

[4:37:27] way I can get back is to be

[4:37:29] open to some changes if a

[4:37:31] triplex. >> okay, thank you

[4:37:34] john klemski come >> mazursky I

[4:37:40] butchered that name john come

[4:37:41] on down and lynn paulson

[4:37:43] go ahead. Honorable mayor and

[4:37:46] city council I am a longtime

[4:37:48] resident of district nine and

[4:37:49] live in the homestead acres

[4:37:51] housing track adjoining the

[4:37:52] boundary of los gatos is an old

[4:37:54] neighborhood of very large lots

[4:37:56] and semi-rural nature. We were

[4:37:58] annexed into the city over our

[4:37:59] strenuous objections not too

[4:38:02] long ago developers sought to

[4:38:03] build nine houses on a single

[4:38:05] lot and homestead acres and was

[4:38:06] turned down by the city. That

[4:38:08] would not happen under this

[4:38:09] proposal. The resulting

[4:38:11] disintegration of cohesive

[4:38:13] neighbors and overflowing

[4:38:14] parking and increasing traffic

[4:38:16] will be a negative impact on

[4:38:18] the quality of life that we've

[4:38:19] worked so hard to maintain. I

[4:38:22] call upon you to protect our

[4:38:23] established neighborhoods and

[4:38:25] communities with reasonable

[4:38:27] with reasonable densities.

[4:38:30] please vote no thank you. Thank

[4:38:35] you. Next speaker okay. Good

[4:38:45] evening. I'm kristen from

[4:38:47] district ten five generations

[4:38:50] of my family and born and

[4:38:51] raised in san jose. And

[4:38:54] my concern is that you're

[4:38:55] forgetting about us. I'm not

[4:38:59] against affordable housing.

[4:39:01] there are some built by

[4:39:02] my house that are not full.

[4:39:04] there's a massive one being

[4:39:05] built down the street and

[4:39:07] there's another one that's

[4:39:08] planned to be developed in the

[4:39:11] next couple of years and I ask

[4:39:14] that you take into

[4:39:15] consideration the impact

[4:39:17] of utilities parking and

[4:39:20] traffic also I don't think we

[4:39:24] need to build because there are

[4:39:25] some in the area I don't think

[4:39:27] that they should be built in

[4:39:29] my neighborhood sorry single

[4:39:34] family >> single family homes

[4:39:36] like mine should the

[4:39:39] neighborhood should stay single

[4:39:40] family homes. So please >>

[4:39:47] thank you that your time next

[4:39:50] speaker I'm robert wood. I'm a

[4:39:58] housing chair of the california

[4:39:59] family association san jose

[4:40:02] state chapter. I'm also

[4:40:03] speaking for bill armor line.

[4:40:04] our political director who had

[4:40:06] to leave and we appreciate what

[4:40:09] the city planning has done in a

[4:40:12] thoughtful effort to work on

[4:40:15] residential neighborhoods. Also

[4:40:17] appreciate the thoughtful

[4:40:18] concerns of the city

[4:40:19] councilmember but we're very

[4:40:21] concerned about key areas

[4:40:23] of opportunity either omitted

[4:40:25] in this proposal. Number one,

[4:40:28] the growth areas in the

[4:40:29] existing plan we have 7.4 miles

[4:40:33] supposed to produce most

[4:40:34] of 170,000 units and

[4:40:36] unrealistic rules and abandoned

[4:40:39] are preventing abandoned

[4:40:40] commercial and office spaces

[4:40:41] from being developed nonprofit

[4:40:43] organizations are not being

[4:40:44] able to build housing on their

[4:40:46] land and we have 85mi² of land

[4:40:49] where zoning prohibits all

[4:40:50] housing just a little bit

[4:40:52] of that. There are some

[4:40:52] excellent opportunities in

[4:40:54] those areas. Sacramento and

[4:40:57] san diego. >> thank you that

[4:40:59] your time larry ames come on

[4:41:02] down and cindy h. Hi, I'm matt

[4:41:09] larson. I work in land use and

[4:41:11] housing policy for the last

[4:41:13] decade and is with that

[4:41:14] background that I say the

[4:41:15] following this is >> great the

[4:41:18] policy framework will have a

[4:41:19] meaningful impact on actually

[4:41:21] building the housing that

[4:41:22] san jose is striving to build.

[4:41:24] staff planning, commission and

[4:41:25] council all deserve our praise.

[4:41:28] there's also a lot of great

[4:41:29] additional policy in the >>

[4:41:30] council memos. The mayor's memo

[4:41:32] adds needed flexibility for

[4:41:34] building affordable housing

[4:41:35] that can dallas a mulcahey or

[4:41:38] t's proposal for additional

[4:41:41] general plan amendment cycle

[4:41:42] will help small developers who

[4:41:44] can't take on the carrying cost

[4:41:46] that larger institutional

[4:41:47] groups can and the tordillos

[4:41:49] command memo and local density

[4:41:52] bonus streamline and will be

[4:41:54] attractive to homebuilders

[4:41:56] while delivering san jose the

[4:41:58] development standards it

[4:41:59] desires. There's also they also

[4:42:02] raise a most important point.

[4:42:04] whatever you do don't risk

[4:42:06] housing element decertification

[4:42:07] and thank you all for your hard

[4:42:09] work. Thank >> you. Next

[4:42:10] speaker. My name is lynn

[4:42:14] paulson. I oppose the proposal

[4:42:16] to revise the general plan to

[4:42:18] increase density allowances for

[4:42:19] most single family home

[4:42:20] parcels. There are many reasons

[4:42:22] I'm opposed but I wanted to

[4:42:24] highlight the impact this could

[4:42:25] have on the tree canopy. I was

[4:42:27] at the council meeting last

[4:42:29] week where you reviewed the

[4:42:30] response to the grand jury

[4:42:32] report regarding the decline

[4:42:33] of san jose's tree canopy which

[4:42:35] is important to all residents

[4:42:37] in the city. During the

[4:42:39] discussion at the august 11th

[4:42:40] council meeting, the city

[4:42:42] forester stated that the

[4:42:43] greatest opportunity to

[4:42:45] reversing this decline in tree

[4:42:46] canopy could be a focus on

[4:42:48] actions related to residential

[4:42:50] parcels. Instead you have

[4:42:52] before you a proposal for

[4:42:53] increased density on single

[4:42:54] family home parcels. That would

[4:42:56] again put the tree canopy issue

[4:42:58] on low priority while not

[4:43:00] helping to reverse the current

[4:43:01] downward trend. Let alone meet

[4:43:02] the goal you have for 2051.

[4:43:04] thank you. Thank >> you. Next

[4:43:07] speaker jo dan from d-10 and

[4:43:11] paul come on >> down. I'm john

[4:43:13] paul mazursky and I was

[4:43:14] surprised to hear about the

[4:43:16] high density housing plan being

[4:43:17] proposed. I attended one of the

[4:43:20] neighborhood meetings but had

[4:43:21] no other communication from

[4:43:22] anywhere about the extent

[4:43:23] of the proposed plan. This plan

[4:43:26] would allow density in the city

[4:43:27] of san jose to be greater than

[4:43:28] new york city. That's your view

[4:43:31] of the city. That's what's

[4:43:33] being proposed. This is a city

[4:43:36] with no real mass transit.

[4:43:37] already long commute times that

[4:43:39] we have everywhere. How are we

[4:43:41] going to pay for that mass

[4:43:42] transit parking? They're

[4:43:43] talking about putting those

[4:43:44] plans in place but it's going

[4:43:45] to be difficult. And I've

[4:43:47] talked to many of your

[4:43:48] constituents and to a person

[4:43:50] they're just incredulous that

[4:43:52] this amount is being proposed.

[4:43:54] and as I understand this, once

[4:43:56] you change the density to a a

[4:43:58] higher density you won't be

[4:44:00] able to reduce it later. So you

[4:44:01] need to make your decision with

[4:44:02] your eyes open. So I support

[4:44:05] the need for new housing but I

[4:44:06] think you need to suggest that

[4:44:08] the planners do take they'll

[4:44:10] take a look at taking those

[4:44:12] high density areas in certain.

[4:44:15] I'm sorry that your time next

[4:44:17] speaker. >> larry ames d six

[4:44:22] neighborhood leaders group as

[4:44:24] we said in a letter we do have

[4:44:26] the need for more housing. The

[4:44:28] state says we must update our

[4:44:29] plans which will change our

[4:44:31] city. But please don't overdo

[4:44:34] it. These changes will be hard

[4:44:35] to undo. We do need to increase

[4:44:37] increased density. But 32 years

[4:44:39] an acre citywide is excessive

[4:44:41] and d six we have many good

[4:44:43] missing middle infill projects

[4:44:45] in japan centric in walkable

[4:44:47] neighborhoods and working out

[4:44:49] around 16 units in acre. The

[4:44:51] mayor's memo 2.1 b calls for

[4:44:54] staff to study this lower

[4:44:55] density. You the growth in

[4:44:57] mayor's.18 and four minimum

[4:45:00] parking standards and analysis

[4:45:03] memo. Don't build high density

[4:45:04] out and transit poor areas. The

[4:45:07] state law calls for some

[4:45:09] objective standards so our

[4:45:10] guidelines will need updating.

[4:45:12] and please ask south to find

[4:45:13] objective ways to our granting

[4:45:15] density bonuses, concessions

[4:45:17] and waivers. We want to work to

[4:45:19] work with the council and the

[4:45:21] city to make san jose better.

[4:45:22] >> thank you. Next speaker

[4:45:31] my my >> historical

[4:45:32] neighborhood opposes the boxy

[4:45:36] ideas that are being presented

[4:45:40] following our different ideas

[4:45:42] that might help put the housing

[4:45:46] >> item on these boxy houses

[4:45:50] and put parking lots underneath

[4:45:53] them rather than putting the

[4:45:55] parking anywhere and

[4:45:58] neighborhood the streets. Place

[4:46:00] more housing near existing high

[4:46:02] rises that high rise housing

[4:46:06] should not be there because

[4:46:08] that's where they work. Work

[4:46:12] with our county government to

[4:46:14] place housing around that. The

[4:46:17] techie >> areas where they

[4:46:21] work. Put business and housing

[4:46:24] around our large regional

[4:46:26] parks. Most of them have

[4:46:28] nothing. Protect our historical

[4:46:30] housing communities and thank

[4:46:33] you. That's your time. Next

[4:46:34] speaker. >> dear leaders please

[4:46:43] vote no on the framework as is

[4:46:46] it must include minimum parking

[4:46:48] any housing needs realistic off

[4:46:51] street parking because working

[4:46:53] class people need their cars.

[4:46:55] few workers have good train or

[4:46:57] bus service to their workplace

[4:46:59] at both ends of the work shift.

[4:47:01] a 16 unit building with no

[4:47:02] parking brings about 24 cars

[4:47:04] that compete for curb space.

[4:47:06] this opens a parking war in

[4:47:08] boston. People hoard curb space

[4:47:10] with old furniture and

[4:47:11] vandalize any car displacing

[4:47:12] that rivalry leads to vandalism

[4:47:15] escalating to violence.

[4:47:16] chicago's infamous projects

[4:47:18] lack parking and don't help

[4:47:20] residents hold down jobs.

[4:47:22] arrogant people say I'm

[4:47:23] interested in space for people

[4:47:25] not cars meaning I'm a people

[4:47:27] person. I don't care what you

[4:47:29] need. Okay. Please continue

[4:47:31] building housing near transit.

[4:47:33] please be practical and include

[4:47:35] parking. Again I can't stress

[4:47:38] this enough I spent a whole

[4:47:39] career working with factory

[4:47:41] people working second and

[4:47:42] third. >> thank you. Next

[4:47:46] speaker series qa. Come on

[4:47:48] down. Ron >> no last name and

[4:47:50] robert. >> okay. I'm

[4:47:56] paul parrott and pretty much

[4:47:57] everything he said the

[4:47:58] community has high density

[4:48:00] areas single family

[4:48:01] neighborhoods, countryside.

[4:48:02] bottom line is we do not want

[4:48:04] our neighborhoods destroyed. We

[4:48:05] spent quite a bit of time

[4:48:07] protecting them. Turns out the

[4:48:09] council actually works for us.

[4:48:11] so if the council votes yes for

[4:48:13] this. Anyone that votes for

[4:48:15] this and raise >> your hand.

[4:48:16] I'm against it. No clapping.

[4:48:17] are you against it? Raise your

[4:48:18] hand. No clapping. Okay.

[4:48:21] everyone I've talked to is

[4:48:23] vietnamese lee against this.

[4:48:24] all right. So any council

[4:48:27] person that votes to to do this

[4:48:30] we are going to recall and

[4:48:32] it'll be about the easiest

[4:48:33] recall we'll ever see. Okay.

[4:48:35] and I know you want to run

[4:48:36] again in 28. I read the article

[4:48:38] you won't be around. So there

[4:48:40] you go. Thank you. Next speaker

[4:48:45] >> we need to ask >> yourself a

[4:48:51] simple question what kind

[4:48:53] of city do we want san jose to

[4:48:55] be? For generations people have

[4:48:57] worked their entire lives to

[4:48:59] buy in a mature, established

[4:49:01] neighborhood. They paid their

[4:49:03] mortgages, property taxes and

[4:49:04] their fair share. That home was

[4:49:06] more than an investment. It was

[4:49:08] an american dream. This isn't

[4:49:11] simply about adding housing. It

[4:49:12] fundamentally changes the

[4:49:14] character of a neighborhood.

[4:49:15] the families worked decades to

[4:49:17] create and preserve. We have to

[4:49:20] ask are we solving a housing

[4:49:22] problem? Are we sacrificing the

[4:49:24] quality of life and established

[4:49:25] neighborhoods because of higher

[4:49:27] density produces more tax

[4:49:29] revenue and development fees?

[4:49:31] we need responsible growth like

[4:49:33] growth at any cost. Please

[4:49:36] protect our mature

[4:49:37] neighborhoods. Respect the

[4:49:38] people who work their whole

[4:49:39] lives to own them and make sure

[4:49:41] san jose remains the city where

[4:49:43] the american dream is protected

[4:49:46] not taken away. >> thanks.

[4:49:49] thank you. Next speaker >>

[4:49:51] alice and katherine matheson.

[4:49:53] come on down. Good evening.

[4:49:56] forgive me if I don't make

[4:49:57] sense. I'm very nervous. I'm

[4:49:59] sorry. Should you not sign as a

[4:50:00] state and an intern for vote on

[4:50:02] climate in san jose

[4:50:03] environmentally sustainable

[4:50:04] land use practices are

[4:50:05] imperative for our city despite

[4:50:07] a dedicated section for

[4:50:09] environmental stewardship. The

[4:50:10] general plan does not outline

[4:50:11] public health or environmental

[4:50:12] studies and regulations high

[4:50:14] energy demanding buildings.

[4:50:15] this city has stressed its

[4:50:16] commitment to implementing

[4:50:17] rigorous environmental

[4:50:18] standards on water and energy

[4:50:19] use. However, noise ordinance

[4:50:21] noncompliance and reports

[4:50:22] of rolling blackouts for

[4:50:23] residents the use of fossil

[4:50:24] fuel generators for backup

[4:50:25] power and potable water line

[4:50:26] easements are inadequate to

[4:50:28] achieve this city's stated

[4:50:29] commitments. The lack of care

[4:50:31] in the general plan is

[4:50:32] worrisome in the lead up to

[4:50:33] developing uniform standards. I

[4:50:35] urge this council to include

[4:50:37] plans for both cumulative

[4:50:38] impact studies and robust rules

[4:50:39] for covering water and clean

[4:50:41] power use for such buildings.

[4:50:42] thank you so much. Thank you.

[4:50:44] next speaker. Also brenda

[4:50:47] doleman, come on down. >> I'm

[4:50:54] here to urge you to vote no on

[4:50:56] item 10.3. It's missing middle

[4:50:59] mom sense. This proposal goes

[4:51:01] far beyond any state

[4:51:02] requirement. No other city in

[4:51:04] santa clara county goes it

[4:51:05] comes anywhere close to

[4:51:07] sweeping. It would allow a

[4:51:08] three story building high

[4:51:09] density of virtually any

[4:51:10] residential lot with no onsite

[4:51:13] parking requirement and no

[4:51:14] firebreak approval. Once it's

[4:51:16] on the books these projects

[4:51:18] skip public hearings, planning

[4:51:19] commissions review or even

[4:51:21] council vote. The impacts are

[4:51:23] permanent. More cars are

[4:51:25] already on already crowded

[4:51:27] streets and a strain on

[4:51:28] utilities and roads and

[4:51:29] according to the city's own

[4:51:30] study. Little to no affordable

[4:51:32] housing is even produced.

[4:51:34] limited public comment by so

[4:51:36] far cannot be mistaken for

[4:51:37] support. Many of us are only

[4:51:39] now learning about how far road

[4:51:42] and irreversible these changes

[4:51:43] are. Please reject this

[4:51:45] proposal at least take it off

[4:51:46] the consent calendar and allow

[4:51:48] for public hearing at least.

[4:51:52] thank you. Next speaker. Do you

[4:52:01] know what fulfilling an

[4:52:03] american dream means? It's not

[4:52:04] living in a condo, an apartment

[4:52:06] or in some high density housing

[4:52:09] but the ability to live in a

[4:52:11] single family house with our

[4:52:13] own little yard. It's absurd

[4:52:15] that now you're seriously

[4:52:16] proposing to destroy every

[4:52:17] single family and neighborhood

[4:52:19] permanently on the neighborhood

[4:52:21] to build high density housing

[4:52:23] on single family lots. I'm

[4:52:25] guessing that all >> of you are

[4:52:26] currently living in your own

[4:52:27] single family home without an a

[4:52:29] unit or even sitting in an

[4:52:31] apartment right next to your

[4:52:32] house. So why would you wish

[4:52:34] other people to live in such a

[4:52:35] condition? So say it's not hong

[4:52:38] kong. There is no lack of space

[4:52:40] to provide additional apartment

[4:52:41] building without messing with

[4:52:43] the existing single family

[4:52:44] neighborhood. Just look

[4:52:46] at block and block of vacant

[4:52:47] old high tech building in north

[4:52:49] san jose with zero productive

[4:52:51] use. Please vote no for this

[4:52:53] nonsensical proposal. You do

[4:52:55] not want to be remembered as

[4:52:57] the one who permanently

[4:52:58] destroys >> san jose and thank

[4:53:01] our next speaker. >> I'm going

[4:53:07] to call wait before there and

[4:53:10] I've already spoken. So I >>

[4:53:14] know you can only speak once on

[4:53:15] each item. I'm sorry. Thank

[4:53:17] you. I'm going to >> go ahead

[4:53:20] and come up to the microphone.

[4:53:21] before you speak I'm going to

[4:53:22] call five people online. Next

[4:53:24] I'm going to go ahead and say

[4:53:25] their names so they can kind

[4:53:27] of wake up. Caller 7 to 0 five

[4:53:30] brian, diane todd and james >>

[4:53:32] patterson. Go ahead. Mayor and

[4:53:36] council members reject the

[4:53:38] missing middle >> framework

[4:53:39] recommendation in the general

[4:53:41] plan for your review. San jose

[4:53:43] residents do not want three

[4:53:44] storey apartment complexes by

[4:53:47] right in residential

[4:53:48] neighborhoods without parking.

[4:53:50] smart growth means

[4:53:51] concentrating density along

[4:53:53] commercial corridors, transit

[4:53:54] hubs not quiet residential

[4:53:56] streets while urban sprawl

[4:53:58] creates long term municipal

[4:54:00] budget deficits. Sb 79 already

[4:54:03] impacts over 40,000 parcels

[4:54:06] near transit stops unlocking up

[4:54:08] to 500,000 units for decades to

[4:54:10] come. Sb >> nine permits four

[4:54:13] units per lot to not go beyond

[4:54:15] state minimums to strain our

[4:54:16] infrastructure, stretch

[4:54:18] emergency services and worsen

[4:54:20] our job to housing ratio cap

[4:54:23] residential neighborhood

[4:54:25] density at four units per lot.

[4:54:27] we need direct leadership.

[4:54:28] please direct our planning

[4:54:30] director city manager ig our

[4:54:32] team to aggressively lobby hk a

[4:54:35] bag drop off in sacramento.

[4:54:38] thank you. That's >> your time.

[4:54:39] caller 7205 please press star

[4:54:42] six to unmute >> and that's

[4:54:46] your last four digits of your

[4:54:48] number. >> hello. Yes go ahead.

[4:54:54] yes >> I'm sj born and raised

[4:54:56] south san jose will go in high

[4:54:58] school class of 2000. I got to

[4:55:00] say the beauty of willow glen

[4:55:01] is its long standing trees,

[4:55:03] nature communities and single

[4:55:05] family homes. This is pure

[4:55:07] developer greed. There are

[4:55:09] better places for small condos

[4:55:11] especially along monterey road

[4:55:12] towards downtown. Don't ruin

[4:55:15] san jose. Be careful of the

[4:55:16] precedence that we set. If

[4:55:18] single family homes for single

[4:55:20] families. >> thank you. >>

[4:55:23] thank you brian followed by

[4:55:27] diane. Thank you. I can't see

[4:55:32] the place where I was

[4:55:33] at because I signed something

[4:55:35] but I had a house and it

[4:55:36] disappeared. And now you can

[4:55:39] go out there and visit and

[4:55:40] there's literally thousands

[4:55:41] of units on top of there. If

[4:55:44] people tell you they're going

[4:55:45] to build moderately it gravity

[4:55:47] will fail before that happens.

[4:55:49] sometime what I'm going to I

[4:55:51] wrote an email that covers all

[4:55:52] the stuff everybody said.

[4:55:54] sometimes you want to walk

[4:55:55] outside, look up and see the

[4:55:58] stars. I understand that's

[4:55:59] emotional and so it doesn't

[4:56:01] have any meaning and never have

[4:56:03] but I can just tell you walk

[4:56:08] softly because once this stuff

[4:56:09] gets in place it won't go away

[4:56:11] and they will go to the maximum

[4:56:13] whenever they get a chance.

[4:56:15] thank you. Thank >> you, diane

[4:56:18] followed by todd in high high.

[4:56:28] please both know to submit our

[4:56:30] recommendation. The general

[4:56:32] plan has an urban reserve area.

[4:56:37] why isn't the urban area being

[4:56:41] considered for high density

[4:56:43] housing plan planning? Is that

[4:56:46] of. Isn't this the ideal

[4:56:49] situation >> to use that

[4:56:51] reserve? There is a lot of land

[4:56:54] there that is not open space.

[4:56:57] it has almost zero density. I

[4:57:00] recommended to use that are

[4:57:03] going to visit the area for the

[4:57:05] estate certification instead

[4:57:07] of disrupting all the

[4:57:08] neighborhood of the city. Thank

[4:57:10] you. >> thank you, todd

[4:57:14] followed by james. Hello. When

[4:57:23] so many residents take the time

[4:57:25] to oppose this agenda item only

[4:57:27] to see memorandums offering

[4:57:30] concessions to wealthier

[4:57:32] suburban todd you cut out these

[4:57:43] >> plans purposely pit

[4:57:44] communities against each other

[4:57:47] while residents simply struggle

[4:57:49] to protect their neighborhoods.

[4:57:51] this entire process feels

[4:57:53] performative and our concerns

[4:57:55] are ultimately ignored. I live

[4:57:58] in an urban transit village

[4:58:00] area so I'm here to support

[4:58:02] other neighborhoods and

[4:58:03] advocate for what is best for

[4:58:05] san jose as a whole. We haven't

[4:58:07] even seen the impacts of the

[4:58:09] urban villages or these new

[4:58:11] state laws yet and we are

[4:58:13] already moving to implement

[4:58:15] blanket policies that strip

[4:58:16] away local oversight. Giving up

[4:58:19] our voice makes no sense. Also

[4:58:23] no parking >> needed near

[4:58:24] trent. Thank you james. Before

[4:58:28] I click allow to speak I'm

[4:58:30] going to call a few names for

[4:58:32] people in person so you can

[4:58:33] make your way down while james

[4:58:34] is speaking. I have cole buford

[4:58:37] bar a c quack. >> it looks

[4:58:41] like. So I guess why wake sioux

[4:58:46] >> and ute or garza? Okay

[4:58:51] james, I'm letting you speak

[4:58:53] now. >> I reso reside in oak

[4:58:58] grove neighborhood in district

[4:58:59] two. Having seen impacts on

[4:59:02] my neighborhood when apartments

[4:59:03] were allowed to change their

[4:59:05] parking rules from multiple

[4:59:07] cars for free to one free and

[4:59:09] any others a monthly charge in

[4:59:12] the carnage it laid to the

[4:59:13] surrounding neighbors. I

[4:59:15] emphatically say this is a

[4:59:17] poorly thought out solution and

[4:59:19] I would expect the city council

[4:59:21] and mayor to vote no on this

[4:59:23] item. This is in direct

[4:59:24] conflict to beautify sj as it

[4:59:27] will lead to beautiful

[4:59:28] neighborhoods. It will

[4:59:30] ultimately force neighbor

[4:59:31] against neighbor parking wars.

[4:59:34] to see actual impacts just

[4:59:35] stroll down walnut blossom

[4:59:36] avenue and the surrounding

[4:59:37] streets across from the

[4:59:38] apartments including haze and

[4:59:41] lead avenue in the evening and

[4:59:43] talk to residents in that area.

[4:59:45] this will break the very fibers

[4:59:47] of a good neighborhood if

[4:59:48] allowed to move forward. I

[4:59:50] expect nonsense ideas like this

[4:59:52] from the current presidential

[4:59:53] administration but not from

[4:59:55] my city leaders. I saw input

[4:59:57] posted indicating the city that

[4:59:59] your >> time next speaker in

[5:00:02] person. Hello. My name's cole.

[5:00:08] >> I do agree with a lot

[5:00:09] of other folks that you know,

[5:00:11] no parking minimum would be a

[5:00:13] bad idea because people have

[5:00:17] cars and made a move into these

[5:00:18] spots hoping to you know will

[5:00:21] park on the street anyways and

[5:00:22] that it does create lot

[5:00:24] of difficulties for working

[5:00:26] class folks. Also I would

[5:00:31] recommend that the general plan

[5:00:33] also include any kind

[5:00:35] of reviews of data centers or

[5:00:39] large energy projects as I do

[5:00:43] believe in the humanist values

[5:00:44] of 2040 plan such as healthy

[5:00:47] neighborhoods and you know data

[5:00:51] centers are also hungry for

[5:00:53] land as well and I hope that

[5:00:55] these data centers are not

[5:00:56] taking priority over more

[5:00:58] housing. >> thank you. Thank

[5:01:02] you. Next speaker I'll wait for

[5:01:07] mahan. He could hear you in the

[5:01:10] back. >> council members I'm

[5:01:12] guilford bar for two years in

[5:01:14] district ten. Please reject

[5:01:18] item 10.3 the proposal >> would

[5:01:20] quadruple density in

[5:01:22] neighborhoods designed for

[5:01:24] single family homes allowing

[5:01:26] for two six units by right no

[5:01:29] parking requirements, no public

[5:01:31] hearings that means no notice,

[5:01:33] no neighbor input, no account

[5:01:36] just permanent citywide

[5:01:38] rezoning. Here's what troubles

[5:01:40] me most saturday doesn't >>

[5:01:42] need this to meet state

[5:01:44] mandate. We can hit our 62,000

[5:01:48] target homes under the existing

[5:01:49] general plan which already

[5:01:51] directs growth toward transit

[5:01:53] corridors. This isn't about

[5:01:55] opposing more housing. It's

[5:01:57] about opposing a permanent >>

[5:01:59] change that bypasses residents,

[5:02:02] invites investor driven

[5:02:04] redevelopment and eliminates

[5:02:06] public voice in there. >> thank

[5:02:09] you that your time? Next

[5:02:10] speaker. >> hi my name is all

[5:02:17] too I am from dayton. Two

[5:02:19] things one you don't have a

[5:02:20] walkable city and some say if

[5:02:22] you want to build housing that

[5:02:25] overcrowded or places it will

[5:02:28] lead to a place where nobody

[5:02:31] can park and that means you

[5:02:32] need to build a walkable city

[5:02:34] first. >> second, I would you

[5:02:37] like to look at the

[5:02:37] sociological sociological

[5:02:40] impact this has? First of all,

[5:02:43] if you have overcrowding in

[5:02:45] places you will get people

[5:02:48] having more crime, higher crime

[5:02:50] rates, you will have more

[5:02:51] vandalism. You will have stuff

[5:02:52] like more what's it called road

[5:02:57] rage and you will make people

[5:03:01] not being proud in their

[5:03:02] neighborhoods anymore because

[5:03:04] if you want to have people have

[5:03:06] pride in something they need to

[5:03:08] have a say in something. Thank

[5:03:10] you. Thank you. Next speaker

[5:03:12] michael bryant. Come on down,

[5:03:14] katherine. Look, no last name.

[5:03:17] go >> ahead. I urge you to

[5:03:18] reject this so-called missing

[5:03:20] middle housing plan forcing up

[5:03:21] to 16 unit apartment buildings

[5:03:23] into single family home

[5:03:24] neighborhoods with no onset

[5:03:26] parking, drastically reduced

[5:03:27] setbacks and no public input

[5:03:29] will not magically produce

[5:03:30] lower income homes. That's not

[5:03:32] leadership. That's a pipe

[5:03:33] dream. This doesn't improve the

[5:03:34] quality of life for residents

[5:03:36] of san jose. Instead it

[5:03:37] enriches investors and

[5:03:39] developers. This plan will

[5:03:40] continue to destroy the

[5:03:41] standard of living and impact

[5:03:42] the safety of residents in your

[5:03:44] community. San jose has

[5:03:45] certainly had its share

[5:03:46] of problems over the last

[5:03:47] years. The california state

[5:03:49] auditor found that not only

[5:03:50] could the 300 million set aside

[5:03:52] to help the homeless not be

[5:03:53] adequately accounted for but

[5:03:54] also that san jose had no

[5:03:56] cohesive plan for building

[5:03:58] affordable homes. This is

[5:03:59] anything but a cohesive plan.

[5:04:01] this is madness. As noted, this

[5:04:03] plan is not needed to achieve

[5:04:05] the current reno numbers.

[5:04:07] future reno developments should

[5:04:08] be planned near transit. Why

[5:04:10] would you want to be on record

[5:04:11] in contributing to the decline

[5:04:12] of quality of life in san jose?

[5:04:14] your job is to make san jose

[5:04:15] better and safer. Vote >> now.

[5:04:18] thank you, mr. Speaker. I >>

[5:04:21] ask you again to please use

[5:04:23] your jazz >> hands or however

[5:04:25] you want to do it quietly so

[5:04:26] that we can get through these

[5:04:28] all quietly and respectfully.

[5:04:30] >> yeah, because you want to

[5:04:32] hear people like me, don't you?

[5:04:33] right. You want to hear people

[5:04:35] like me because I vote for you

[5:04:36] to reject this. Do you guys

[5:04:38] want to live next door >> to a

[5:04:40] housing project I would build?

[5:04:42] I don't think so. I would build

[5:04:44] a mini cruise ship if anyone

[5:04:45] knows what a cruise ship is.

[5:04:47] okay. Yeah. People know, don't

[5:04:49] they? Wouldn't you? I mean any

[5:04:52] of you. Would you want me to

[5:04:53] live next door to you and build

[5:04:54] something? Ask yourself that

[5:04:56] any one of you on the dais. Ask

[5:04:57] yourself if you want to live

[5:04:58] next door to me. I don't think

[5:05:00] so. What I would build you

[5:05:02] wouldn't like you could turn

[5:05:04] into section eight. That could

[5:05:05] be terrible, wouldn't it? Could

[5:05:07] you imagine that this thing is

[5:05:08] designed for specular data's

[5:05:10] flippers developers? Just take

[5:05:13] a look at the >> fair downtown.

[5:05:15] no one wants to live in it.

[5:05:16] that was approved of high

[5:05:18] density housing. I call it the

[5:05:20] fail. And that's exactly what

[5:05:22] this is going to be. If if you

[5:05:24] guys allow this to happen, it's

[5:05:26] going to is going to turn our

[5:05:27] neighborhoods into something

[5:05:29] that you don't want to live in

[5:05:30] and you don't want me to live

[5:05:31] next door to you if you vote

[5:05:33] for this because you wouldn't

[5:05:34] like I could guaran >> thank

[5:05:35] you that your time. Darrell

[5:05:37] come on down. And and melissa,

[5:05:46] I >> strongly urge you to vote

[5:05:48] no on the permanent stay

[5:05:50] missing middle proposal. The

[5:05:52] reason why is I can't describe

[5:05:54] to you. According to this plan,

[5:05:57] my rising neighbor can build up

[5:06:00] to six housing units >> in

[5:06:03] my left side. Neighbor can >>

[5:06:05] build up to 12 units. And every

[5:06:09] one if every unit need two

[5:06:11] cards. I do. My calculation is

[5:06:14] a 50 >> six cards and you don't

[5:06:18] require any outside parking.

[5:06:21] and I tell you I'm down to my.

[5:06:24] my street is a school. And you

[5:06:27] know that school >> traffic. So

[5:06:29] you tell me why. Why? Sure I

[5:06:31] do. And they can be close to

[5:06:34] the property line and find

[5:06:37] my approval. They don't need

[5:06:38] hearing. Don't need the

[5:06:40] neighbor input public input.

[5:06:43] and once they approve it's a

[5:06:44] permanent >> and reversible.

[5:06:47] and also >> thank you that your

[5:06:48] time. Go come on down. Lori

[5:06:54] droste, good evening. Good

[5:07:00] afternoon. My name is michael

[5:07:02] bryant. You've all gotten many

[5:07:05] emails from me since august and

[5:07:07] I've only heard from two people

[5:07:09] on this council. This is campus

[5:07:12] office and I got a face on with

[5:07:14] george casey. So I don't know

[5:07:16] where the rest of you been but

[5:07:18] I'm upset about that. I

[5:07:21] strongly >> am against us. I've

[5:07:23] lived in san jose for 68 years.

[5:07:26] I got my first house when I was

[5:07:28] 22 years old. It took me 80

[5:07:30] hours a week to pay that

[5:07:32] mortgage. I got my second house

[5:07:34] when I got close to 30 and I'm

[5:07:36] living out in santa teresa now

[5:07:38] in a nice neighborhood. And it

[5:07:40] took me 80 hours a week to pay

[5:07:42] that house to I was in

[5:07:44] my mid-forties almost 50. So

[5:07:46] now I'm retired. I'm living

[5:07:48] there. I'm comfortable. And

[5:07:50] this is not going to work for

[5:07:52] me. So you guys need to rethink

[5:07:54] this because I guarantee you

[5:07:56] anybody that votes for this I

[5:07:57] will do everything I can to get

[5:07:59] you thrown out in the next

[5:08:00] election. >> thank you. Next

[5:08:03] speaker. >> good evening. And

[5:08:11] paulson representing yimby law

[5:08:14] in be lost sent you a letter >>

[5:08:16] today supporting this up

[5:08:19] zoning. I'll summarize >>

[5:08:21] something like preventing

[5:08:23] someone from building four

[5:08:25] townhouses on their own

[5:08:26] property is a huge property

[5:08:29] right restriction. The supreme

[5:08:32] court and the roberts court in

[5:08:34] particular have shown a lot

[5:08:36] of deference to property rights

[5:08:38] saying that if a city restricts

[5:08:41] property rights it has to be

[5:08:44] the least restrictive way to

[5:08:47] achieve their goal. Yimby >>

[5:08:49] law believes that single family

[5:08:52] zoning >> is >> not the least

[5:08:55] restrictive way to achieve any

[5:08:58] goal. And they are prepared to

[5:09:05] go to court to enforce >> this

[5:09:06] work. You should support >>

[5:09:09] this proposal because it's

[5:09:10] right and >> thank you that

[5:09:12] your time. Milo trout come on

[5:09:15] down. Terrace salon and

[5:09:18] patricia macdonald. >> good

[5:09:22] evening mayor and city council.

[5:09:24] I suppose I'm one of those rare

[5:09:26] examples of a single family

[5:09:27] homeowner who likes living

[5:09:29] between two multiplexes. I'm

[5:09:32] here to speak in support of the

[5:09:33] staff recommendation and the

[5:09:35] tordillos in the committee

[5:09:36] memo. We all feel the effects

[5:09:38] of the housing crisis just this

[5:09:39] year we saw the elementary

[5:09:41] school down our block close.

[5:09:42] we've seen more friends priced

[5:09:44] out of our city and we've seen

[5:09:45] our workers driving long

[5:09:46] commutes because they can't

[5:09:47] afford to live in a city that

[5:09:49] they serve. This week

[5:09:51] my sister's visiting from new

[5:09:52] york to celebrate her first

[5:09:53] pregnancy the first baby in the

[5:09:55] family born in our generation.

[5:09:58] I wish she could afford to move

[5:09:59] here and raise my future nephew

[5:10:01] closer to family instead

[5:10:03] of thousands of miles away. >>

[5:10:05] but like for the majority

[5:10:06] of our residents already living

[5:10:07] here, that dream is too far out

[5:10:09] of reach. Proposals like this

[5:10:11] are about more than numbers

[5:10:12] of dwelling units per acre.

[5:10:14] there are concrete steps you

[5:10:15] can take right now to reverse

[5:10:16] years of an action that has led

[5:10:18] to this housing crisis. Today

[5:10:20] we've heard from a lot

[5:10:21] of people who have lived in

[5:10:22] san jose for. >> thank you that

[5:10:24] your time. Next speaker. >>

[5:10:30] hello, I'm laurie drost,

[5:10:32] housing policy director at spur

[5:10:34] and a former berkeley city

[5:10:35] council member where I authored

[5:10:37] missing little housing and

[5:10:38] parking reforms. We can't solve

[5:10:40] a housing shortage by making

[5:10:42] housing harder to build. Please

[5:10:45] maintain at least 32 dwelling

[5:10:46] units per acre. That is already

[5:10:48] really modest allowing duplexes

[5:10:51] triplexes and smaller

[5:10:52] multifamily homes. When a

[5:10:54] detached home costs 1.7 million

[5:10:57] the american dream

[5:10:59] of homeownership is slipping

[5:11:00] out of reach. Messy middle

[5:11:02] housing creates another path

[5:11:03] and opens more neighborhoods to

[5:11:05] more families. Also, please

[5:11:07] don't bring parking

[5:11:08] requirements back artificial

[5:11:10] mandates consume land, increase

[5:11:12] cost and make small projects

[5:11:14] infeasible. These homes may

[5:11:16] stand for 100 years. We can't

[5:11:18] predict how people will travel

[5:11:20] in 2126. Please maintain 32

[5:11:23] units per acre, reject parking

[5:11:25] minimums and keep the american

[5:11:26] dream within reach. >> thank

[5:11:29] you. Next speaker current home

[5:11:33] yo come on down and linda fall.

[5:11:35] >> I'm terri >> swain. I'm a

[5:11:39] local realtor here in san jose.

[5:11:41] I'm california did not mandate

[5:11:44] >> 32 dwelling units per acre.

[5:11:46] that was with san jose's that

[5:11:48] was san jose's choice the

[5:11:50] planners. Then use the number

[5:11:53] >> to create the figures for

[5:11:54] the missing middle chart. The

[5:11:56] planners showed no data. Why

[5:11:58] 2622 or 18 wouldn't have worked

[5:12:01] instead of 32. Before moving

[5:12:04] forward please ask planning may

[5:12:07] model several lower density

[5:12:10] alternate is including the

[5:12:11] lowest additional capacity

[5:12:13] required by hpd. After after

[5:12:16] taking into >> account capacity

[5:12:18] that will already be provided

[5:12:20] through sb nine and other state

[5:12:21] pels planning has paso level

[5:12:24] data use roi is helpful and

[5:12:28] make policy decisions but not

[5:12:32] to make policy decisions but to

[5:12:34] quickly model different

[5:12:35] scenarios and incorporate

[5:12:37] public feedback. Thank you that

[5:12:40] your >> time next speaker may

[5:12:43] or may hand council members I'm

[5:12:44] >> a san jose resident and a

[5:12:46] member. Hi. Wait how did that

[5:12:48] >> happen? Go ahead. >> hi.

[5:12:51] I've lived in my single family

[5:12:53] resident neighborhood for

[5:12:55] almost 40 years and I walk the

[5:12:57] neighborhood every morning and

[5:13:00] I see the changes that are

[5:13:01] occurring and I'm vehemently

[5:13:04] against what's happening. I see

[5:13:08] these monstrous houses and

[5:13:09] beautiful single family homes

[5:13:12] that are one stories being torn

[5:13:14] down and they are like monster

[5:13:18] houses. There seems to be no

[5:13:19] moratorium on the heights and

[5:13:22] they over power everything they

[5:13:27] there's no sunlight. I mean and

[5:13:28] it's it's something that just

[5:13:30] really needs to be looked at. I

[5:13:33] implore you to look at other

[5:13:34] cities and the studies that

[5:13:37] they've done before venturing

[5:13:41] into something like this and

[5:13:44] taking a closer look on the

[5:13:46] impacts of building this type

[5:13:50] of society. The streets look.

[5:13:53] thank you that your time? We

[5:13:55] had a glitch with zuma

[5:13:56] at unmuted somebody I don't

[5:13:57] know how it did that but I'm

[5:13:58] going to go ahead and go over

[5:13:59] to her because she had started

[5:14:01] speaking and then we'll come

[5:14:02] back to you, sir. Sheila,

[5:14:06] go ahead. It >> looks like she

[5:14:13] may have went away so I'm going

[5:14:14] to go ahead and move.

[5:14:15] permission to speak? She can

[5:14:16] raise her hand again but I

[5:14:17] don't know what happened there.

[5:14:18] just wanted to make sure

[5:14:19] everything was fair. Go ahead,

[5:14:20] sir. Thank you for waiting.

[5:14:22] sure. >> hi. I live in an

[5:14:25] apartment building. It's right

[5:14:26] next to a single family home.

[5:14:28] we can see into their yard.

[5:14:30] does this make me and my family

[5:14:31] neighborhood destroyers? No.

[5:14:33] our kids play together. I would

[5:14:35] move into an 8 or 10 story

[5:14:37] apartment building. Does this

[5:14:38] make me a bad person? No. It

[5:14:40] makes me someone living in a

[5:14:42] world class city that happens

[5:14:44] to be caught up in the results

[5:14:45] of decades of poor planning

[5:14:47] decisions. And here we have an

[5:14:49] opportunity for council to

[5:14:50] follow staff's recommendations

[5:14:52] to maintain a certified housing

[5:14:54] element at two six north

[5:14:56] winchester, for example, is a

[5:14:58] prime location that will

[5:14:59] actually deliver housing. But

[5:15:02] the neighbors and council

[5:15:03] member mulcahy are engaging in

[5:15:05] a classic moving of goalposts

[5:15:07] by asking for yet another

[5:15:08] zoning reduction on exactly the

[5:15:10] parcel that is most likely to

[5:15:12] produce housing. You are the

[5:15:14] decision makers. The time is

[5:15:16] now to be bold and meet the

[5:15:18] glaring housing need. Do not

[5:15:20] cave to demands that amount to

[5:15:22] nice to have that amount

[5:15:23] tonight. Thank you. Next

[5:15:26] speaker andrew. So come on

[5:15:29] down, corinne. I already called

[5:15:31] corinne. Trish mcdonald's.

[5:15:35] janet spoke. Okay. Trish

[5:15:38] interested? Okay. Go ahead.

[5:15:42] okay. Good evening. I'm corinne

[5:15:45] tamayo. I live in district six,

[5:15:47] the willow glen neighborhood. I

[5:15:49] have been in my willow glen

[5:15:50] home for 37 years. Most of the

[5:15:53] homes in my neighborhood are 90

[5:15:56] years old at this point. I am

[5:15:59] vehemently opposed to this plan

[5:16:02] to dramatically increase zoning

[5:16:04] in our single-family

[5:16:05] neighborhood. I fear it will

[5:16:07] fundamentally alter the willow

[5:16:09] glen historic neighbor hood

[5:16:11] character character. It will

[5:16:14] tax our neighborhoods aging

[5:16:16] infrastructure such as sewage

[5:16:18] and plumbing capacity. The

[5:16:20] localized electric grid and

[5:16:21] water supply. It will result in

[5:16:23] severe congestion due to lack

[5:16:26] of parking. It will severely

[5:16:28] impact and destroy the

[5:16:29] neighborhoods. Mature a tree

[5:16:31] canopy which is already only

[5:16:33] at a dismal 13.5% for the city

[5:16:36] of san jose. Residential lots

[5:16:38] account for 70% of all san jose

[5:16:40] city trees. I urge you to

[5:16:43] reject this proposal. Thank

[5:16:47] you. Next speaker. >> hi. Thank

[5:16:56] you for listening to all of us.

[5:16:58] I just want to say that please

[5:17:00] reject this proposal. I believe

[5:17:03] this is going to destroy our

[5:17:05] neighborhoods and once it's

[5:17:06] done 30 years from now you

[5:17:09] can't go back and take all

[5:17:10] these buildings down and just

[5:17:12] go back to single family

[5:17:13] housing. Please reject this

[5:17:15] issue. I think it's a very

[5:17:18] important one for the city

[5:17:19] of san jose and I believe that

[5:17:21] this will just I can't

[5:17:22] emphasize enough. I think you

[5:17:24] will destroy our neighborhoods

[5:17:26] and I don't like to propose

[5:17:29] threats but I mean I think our

[5:17:32] next voting round I mean we're

[5:17:34] going to decide do >> we want

[5:17:37] people who want to bring these

[5:17:40] small apartments into our

[5:17:42] neighborhoods? I'm sorry. I

[5:17:44] don't agree with this at all.

[5:17:46] please say no. >> thank you.

[5:17:49] next speaker I also have

[5:17:51] ramachandran bala come on down.

[5:17:54] susan noda and veena >>

[5:17:57] ramachandran. Go ahead. Hi, I'm

[5:18:01] ed russo and I'm sorry for

[5:18:03] my voice but I just want to let

[5:18:06] you know I have lived in

[5:18:07] san jose my whole life. The

[5:18:09] community that we have built

[5:18:11] this city, the working together

[5:18:13] with neighbors and >> partners

[5:18:18] that we >> have in this city to

[5:18:19] destroy that would be

[5:18:22] unconscionable. We >> are a

[5:18:25] city that is a community no

[5:18:29] matter where you live. And to

[5:18:31] destroy that would be so sad.

[5:18:34] and once we destroy it, we

[5:18:36] can't go back. There's plenty

[5:18:39] of places in san jose where we

[5:18:41] can build high density housing.

[5:18:44] my husband worked >> for the

[5:18:45] vta for 35 years. I understand

[5:18:48] we need more housing there.

[5:18:50] vta. Why are we doing that? Why

[5:18:52] are we looking at places like

[5:18:55] abandoned commercial buildings?

[5:18:58] let's be prudent and save >>

[5:19:01] our lives. Thank you. Next

[5:19:04] speaker. Good evening. My name

[5:19:11] is baller and increasing

[5:19:13] density from 8 to 32 units per

[5:19:16] acre with three storey

[5:19:17] buildings will reverse or to

[5:19:20] our neighborhoods. Furthermore,

[5:19:22] the density will place an

[5:19:24] unsustainable burden on

[5:19:26] essential public services. Most

[5:19:29] concerning is the proposed

[5:19:31] ministerial approval process.

[5:19:34] there's three practical

[5:19:35] examples that I have seen. A

[5:19:37] neighbor of mine runs a hostel

[5:19:41] for traveling nurses at one

[5:19:42] point in time on a 5000ft² lot.

[5:19:45] I found 16 vehicles parked.

[5:19:48] another of my neighbors runs a

[5:19:50] rental car agency. A third and

[5:19:52] a fourth. They actually run a

[5:19:54] bar inside their garage. Now if

[5:19:57] we adopt this kind of a

[5:19:58] proposal, just imagine the

[5:20:00] consequences that it'll happen.

[5:20:02] people think commercial and

[5:20:04] this is what is going to cause

[5:20:06] damage to our community. I urge

[5:20:08] the city council to vote no.

[5:20:11] thank you. Next speaker alison

[5:20:14] single loni come on down linda

[5:20:17] geisha and ali >> victory. >>

[5:20:22] good evening. I'm veena

[5:20:24] ramachandran from various huh?

[5:20:26] I strongly opposed the zoning

[5:20:29] from single family home to

[5:20:30] multi >> zoning. Several

[5:20:32] residents of various high in

[5:20:34] san jose >> have worked hard

[5:20:35] all their lives to buy a single

[5:20:37] family >> home. Several people

[5:20:39] have moved from other crowded

[5:20:41] cities nearby to come and live

[5:20:43] in san jose because of the

[5:20:45] present single family homes and

[5:20:47] the large sites. Demolishing

[5:20:50] single family homes destroys an

[5:20:52] entire neighborhood. Also the

[5:20:55] wave of unnecessary

[5:20:56] requirements like garages and

[5:20:58] entrances puts pressure on

[5:21:00] neighbors. And there'll be

[5:21:03] fights and disputes. There'll

[5:21:06] be an increase in crime. And

[5:21:08] most important, what no one is

[5:21:10] mentioning is that land sharks

[5:21:11] will move in. If I have two

[5:21:13] multi-story buildings on either

[5:21:15] side of me I'm a very easy prey

[5:21:17] and I'll be forced out. And >>

[5:21:19] this is not what I bought a

[5:21:21] house in san jose for. So

[5:21:23] please oppose this. Thank you.

[5:21:27] next speaker kris justin. Come

[5:21:29] on down. Bart wilner and

[5:21:31] benjamin white. Good evening,

[5:21:34] alison single lani, director

[5:21:35] of policy with s.v. At home and

[5:21:36] a longtime d5 resident. We

[5:21:39] support the planning

[5:21:40] commission's recommendation to

[5:21:41] increase residential

[5:21:42] neighborhood densities to 32

[5:21:44] units per acre. To support the

[5:21:46] development of middle income

[5:21:47] housing, this can help create

[5:21:49] much needed more affordable

[5:21:50] homes in san jose. Make street

[5:21:53] smart strategic use of our

[5:21:54] existing infrastructure and

[5:21:56] reduce greenhouse gas emissions

[5:21:57] by letting people live closer

[5:21:59] to where they work. We

[5:22:00] encourage council to take this

[5:22:02] necessary step in compliance

[5:22:03] with the city's adopted housing

[5:22:05] element from the teeth,

[5:22:06] tordillos and committee memo we

[5:22:07] support increased height limits

[5:22:09] for middle housing surrounding

[5:22:10] transit areas. From the mayor's

[5:22:12] brown act memo we support the

[5:22:13] recommendations related to

[5:22:14] pickup lands from the candela

[5:22:17] ortiz mulcahey memo. We support

[5:22:18] a streamlined process and lower

[5:22:20] fee structure for special use

[5:22:21] permits for communities serving

[5:22:23] users on pickup land. We oppose

[5:22:26] adding new parking requirements

[5:22:27] to development or exempting

[5:22:29] parts of the city from middle

[5:22:30] income development. You can

[5:22:32] live >> in a vibrant city

[5:22:33] that's growing or >> thank you

[5:22:38] >> that your time next speaker.

[5:22:40] >> linda gautier district

[5:22:44] district nine for 46 years

[5:22:46] esteemed mayor council members

[5:22:48] as an elected official I'm

[5:22:50] accustomed to dense official

[5:22:51] language but please create

[5:22:53] executive summaries for these

[5:22:54] proposals that are bullet

[5:22:55] pointed and in plain english

[5:22:56] for the layperson homeowner who

[5:22:58] wants to know what 100 words or

[5:23:00] less what it means for him or

[5:23:01] her? Personally I'd like to say

[5:23:03] that I'm tired of the pit

[5:23:05] of the popular view that

[5:23:07] my neighbors and I are selfish

[5:23:08] privileged snobs. My cambrian

[5:23:11] home I bought out could only

[5:23:13] squeak into my cambrian home in

[5:23:14] 1980 because it had a 60 cubic

[5:23:16] foot hole for a planned

[5:23:17] swimming pool in the backyard.

[5:23:19] I couldn't afford to have it

[5:23:20] filled so for two years I

[5:23:21] got free pool dirt dumped in

[5:23:23] front of the house and used a

[5:23:24] wheelbarrow to get it in the

[5:23:25] hole. My salary at that time

[5:23:28] was under 12 a year and I

[5:23:29] worked multiple jobs for a long

[5:23:30] time. I refinanced to send a

[5:23:32] son to college and again to

[5:23:34] help his family buy a house

[5:23:35] of their own. I live on a tight

[5:23:37] budget in the house so many

[5:23:38] seem to resent me having I made

[5:23:41] this investment under a set

[5:23:42] of rules that I had every

[5:23:43] reason to expect would not.

[5:23:46] thank you that your time? Next

[5:23:48] speaker. Ali superman come on

[5:23:51] down and down. Oh, hello. Ali

[5:23:56] victory in district seven and I

[5:23:59] discovered I'm in the missing

[5:24:01] middle for 45 years my husband

[5:24:04] and I raised our family in high

[5:24:07] density home. We have a

[5:24:08] townhome across the street are

[5:24:11] duplexes a half mile away >> or

[5:24:15] apartment complexes and right

[5:24:17] next door single family homes.

[5:24:19] it's a neighborhood that works.

[5:24:22] it does have issues. Parking is

[5:24:26] one for 45 years we've had

[5:24:28] issues with parking. So this

[5:24:31] plan I support but I am really

[5:24:35] glad to see the memorandums

[5:24:38] that are looking to direct the

[5:24:40] staff in a reasonable way.

[5:24:43] thank you. Thank you. Next

[5:24:46] speaker hi my name is chris

[5:24:50] justine my wife and I have a

[5:24:52] house in willow glen. We all >>

[5:24:54] want housing to be more

[5:24:55] available and more affordable

[5:24:57] but more density, more

[5:24:58] affordable housing are not the

[5:24:59] same thing. Increasing

[5:25:01] neighborhood density is only

[5:25:02] one possible tool. Tax policy

[5:25:05] incentives >> regulatory

[5:25:07] reform, development costs and

[5:25:08] other approaches can also

[5:25:10] affect housing availability >>

[5:25:11] and affordability. Yet we >>

[5:25:13] are considering changes that

[5:25:14] could increase residential

[5:25:16] neighborhood density from eight

[5:25:18] to as much as 32 units an acre

[5:25:20] allow three storey development

[5:25:22] and use ministerial approvals.

[5:25:24] your own memoranda show that

[5:25:26] the answers aren't settled >>

[5:25:27] here. That's why I support

[5:25:29] councilmember jones request for

[5:25:30] a four week deferral and

[5:25:32] dedicated >> public meeting for

[5:25:34] weeks as a small price to pay

[5:25:36] for better public understanding

[5:25:37] of a policy that could

[5:25:39] permanently affect san jose's

[5:25:40] established neighborhoods.

[5:25:42] don't make the policy outrun

[5:25:44] the evidence. Give the public

[5:25:46] the four weeks to study the

[5:25:47] alternatives. Then we can make

[5:25:49] an informed decision. >> I bart

[5:25:57] wilner district six for 48

[5:25:59] years state bill 79 is a

[5:26:07] mandate. It's the law. We have

[5:26:08] to follow it. What you're all

[5:26:10] trying to do now is strictly a

[5:26:13] discretionary decision. It has

[5:26:15] nothing to do with the law. It

[5:26:17] is not a mandate. You only

[5:26:18] mandate is to the voters that

[5:26:19] put you in office. Right now we

[5:26:22] shouldn't be looking

[5:26:25] at increasing what the state

[5:26:27] of california is asking for. We

[5:26:28] should be looking at how we can

[5:26:30] fulfill what the state

[5:26:31] of california is asking for.

[5:26:32] follow the law. Do it for a few

[5:26:35] years. Reevaluate see what how

[5:26:37] it works out and then may

[5:26:39] changes as necessary. We're

[5:26:41] putting a horse in front of the

[5:26:42] cart. It's ridiculous right

[5:26:44] now. Your your emphasis should

[5:26:47] be seeing >> how google is

[5:26:48] going to build the 5900 units

[5:26:51] 25% of them affordable housing

[5:26:53] that they promised us and it's

[5:26:55] now going to be probably in the

[5:26:56] mid 2030s before they even

[5:26:58] break ground. Come on, let's do

[5:27:00] the job. Thank you. That your

[5:27:01] time? Thank you. I'm bill

[5:27:03] moline. Come on down steve

[5:27:05] ling, robert wood and mary

[5:27:07] pizzo. Hello. My name is

[5:27:13] benjamin white. I live in the

[5:27:16] winchester corridor

[5:27:17] neighborhood. >> I think that

[5:27:20] the fourfold increase in

[5:27:23] residential zoning density that

[5:27:25] is proposed is extreme for that

[5:27:28] neighborhood. I also >> think

[5:27:31] that rezoning property ease in

[5:27:36] this and any parcel in this

[5:27:38] residential neighborhood to

[5:27:41] urban residential is also

[5:27:43] inappropriate for a residential

[5:27:46] neighborhood like this. And I

[5:27:49] also want to say that I do

[5:27:52] support the memo that

[5:27:55] councilmember mulcahy

[5:27:56] coauthored. I think that is a

[5:27:59] reasonable proposal, a step in

[5:28:02] the right direction. Thank you.

[5:28:04] >> thank you. Next speaker.

[5:28:11] thank you. I'm bill wolf and I

[5:28:15] think this is a great proposal.

[5:28:17] for any city with a subway

[5:28:20] system because with the subway

[5:28:23] system people can just ride to

[5:28:24] work and they're fine. But if

[5:28:28] you don't have a subway system,

[5:28:30] people might need cars and they

[5:28:32] might need to park their car

[5:28:34] both at work and at home. So

[5:28:37] please vote against this idea

[5:28:40] and as an incentive I'll give

[5:28:42] up the rest of my time. Thank

[5:28:45] you. Next speaker I ali

[5:28:53] superman on behalf of the

[5:28:54] housing action coalition and as

[5:28:56] a downtown resident I urge you

[5:28:58] to accept staff's winchester

[5:28:59] boulevard compromise. Please

[5:29:01] don't limit the corridor to

[5:29:02] townhomes only and don't carve

[5:29:03] out parcels 8 to 6 winchester

[5:29:05] hersh special treatment because

[5:29:07] every site shares the same

[5:29:08] characteristics. On missing

[5:29:10] middle housing please adopt

[5:29:11] at least 40 dwelling units per

[5:29:13] acre as task force members have

[5:29:15] called for berkeley's program

[5:29:16] goes further at 17 if berkeley

[5:29:18] can do it, a much larger city

[5:29:20] like san jose can too. Density

[5:29:22] must be high enough to make

[5:29:23] math work. I also support the

[5:29:24] councilmembers tordillos and

[5:29:26] may's memo. I encourage a

[5:29:28] predictable ministerial

[5:29:29] approval process with clear

[5:29:30] objectives standards and

[5:29:31] defined review timelines.

[5:29:33] please maintain the city's

[5:29:35] commitment to eliminate parking

[5:29:36] minimums. We committed to

[5:29:38] things in the housing element

[5:29:39] and we don't need to

[5:29:40] relitigate. We must implement a

[5:29:42] program that maintains the

[5:29:44] city's housing element

[5:29:45] commitments falling short risk,

[5:29:46] decertification and loss

[5:29:48] of local land control. Thank >>

[5:29:49] you. >> thank you. Next

[5:29:51] speaker. >> hello, my name is

[5:29:56] steve leng. I'm present of the

[5:29:58] strawberry park neighborhood

[5:29:59] association in district one.

[5:30:02] I'm also former former chairman

[5:30:05] of the district one leadership

[5:30:06] group. Thanks for the

[5:30:08] opportunity to speak. I'll be

[5:30:09] brief in the if the motivation

[5:30:11] for up zoning in the proposed

[5:30:13] framework is to meet the state

[5:30:15] mandate of 62,200 new housing

[5:30:18] units by 2031 for the regional

[5:30:20] housing needs allocation. I

[5:30:22] believe there are less dramatic

[5:30:24] ways to get this done.

[5:30:27] specifically I'm referring to

[5:30:29] the quadrupling of the single

[5:30:31] family density limits from 8 to

[5:30:33] 32 units per acre across the

[5:30:36] entire city. Please vote no on

[5:30:39] this proposal. Hold your

[5:30:40] planning staff and neighborhood

[5:30:43] leaders like me accountable to

[5:30:45] go come up with a better plan.

[5:30:47] thank you. Thank you. Next

[5:30:50] speaker >> after this speaker

[5:30:53] I'm going to call five names

[5:30:55] online. Just so you know, I

[5:30:57] have about six cards left in

[5:31:00] person and 20 >> hands online.

[5:31:02] go ahead. >> good evening.

[5:31:04] my name is mary peet. So I have

[5:31:06] lived in san jose almost all

[5:31:08] of my life and I would like not

[5:31:11] only the council >> but also

[5:31:13] the planners >> to look at the

[5:31:15] items that were detailed by the

[5:31:17] district six leadership group

[5:31:20] because we believe in growth,

[5:31:22] we understand we live in a city

[5:31:23] that needs to grow but we also

[5:31:25] believe that some of the path

[5:31:27] decisions have proven to be

[5:31:29] inaccurate and some of the new

[5:31:31] guidelines that you're

[5:31:32] proposing are way too generous

[5:31:35] for develop buyers and really

[5:31:38] don't address the neighbors who

[5:31:40] come to these meetings to talk

[5:31:42] with other neighbors who really

[5:31:44] want you to respect the fact

[5:31:46] that we also know our

[5:31:47] neighborhood and what's worked

[5:31:49] and what hasn't worked. Thank

[5:31:51] you. >> alright I'm going to

[5:31:54] go to sheila and then followed

[5:31:56] by m.l. And tamisha. Jordan

[5:31:58] moldau and tate. Okay. My name

[5:32:02] is sheila. Okay. I'm an

[5:32:03] associate broker with bmg. I

[5:32:05] think two things are essential.

[5:32:08] I don't agree with the proposal

[5:32:10] because it doesn't meet the

[5:32:11] needs of the city or the

[5:32:12] community but more importantly

[5:32:15] any developer who's making a

[5:32:17] ton of money by giving you 1 or

[5:32:20] 2 housing that is subsidized as

[5:32:24] opposed to full tilt money is a

[5:32:28] violation of our rights as

[5:32:30] citizens to give our hard

[5:32:32] earned money and interest to

[5:32:34] them. So I'm opposed to that.

[5:32:36] I'm also opposed to if you're

[5:32:38] going to build why don't you

[5:32:40] just build underground

[5:32:42] permanently just the way you

[5:32:44] need to do to make sure

[5:32:45] everybody in that building has

[5:32:47] a place to go. Now that makes

[5:32:50] no impact on the community

[5:32:52] of the people you're going to

[5:32:53] damage anyway. If you

[5:32:55] go through with it. And third,

[5:32:57] if you're going to get the

[5:32:59] developers to give your money

[5:33:02] to m.l. >> followed by an

[5:33:05] tamisha I am very concerned

[5:33:09] that data centers are not

[5:33:10] included as a study topic and

[5:33:12] this work plan for your four

[5:33:13] year review of the general plan

[5:33:14] for 2047 would need to be

[5:33:17] studied as part of the general

[5:33:18] plan. There are currently 34

[5:33:19] approved and pending data

[5:33:20] center projects in san jose. A

[5:33:22] lot of them are district two

[5:33:23] where there is no recycled

[5:33:25] water. These data centers

[5:33:26] directly steal freshwater

[5:33:27] resources away from human

[5:33:29] beings and wildlife in the

[5:33:30] city. We need water not data to

[5:33:32] survive. We already live in a

[5:33:33] very drought prone area. The

[5:33:35] u.n. Has declared that we are

[5:33:36] now in an era of water being

[5:33:38] added as of this year. So we

[5:33:40] will surely see a drought again

[5:33:41] in this area. Water consumption

[5:33:43] needs to be human consumption

[5:33:45] needs to be prioritized. Noise

[5:33:47] pollution energy needs hazards

[5:33:48] to human and wildlife health

[5:33:50] are also very serious concerns

[5:33:51] that I don't have time to speak

[5:33:53] on. Data centers need to be

[5:33:54] studied as part of this general

[5:33:56] plan. Please reject this

[5:33:57] proposal. The >> mischa

[5:34:01] followed by jordan mayor >> may

[5:34:05] hand council members and west

[5:34:06] tennessee resident and a member

[5:34:08] of I love san jose.org

[5:34:09] coalition of over 3000

[5:34:11] organized residents. My family

[5:34:12] lives less than a mile from the

[5:34:14] prologis proposed 99 megawatt

[5:34:17] data center today. Residents

[5:34:18] spoke against rezoning ibm

[5:34:20] almaden for data centers. You

[5:34:21] voted 9 to 2 to approve it

[5:34:23] anyway. No cumulative impact

[5:34:25] analysis, no standard city

[5:34:26] staff confirm this is analysis

[5:34:28] doesn't currently exist. We

[5:34:30] already have equinox operating

[5:34:32] nearby stack infrastructure's

[5:34:33] 100mw pending for a lot for a

[5:34:36] allergist's with 396mw plant

[5:34:39] yet there's no analysis

[5:34:40] of whether our neighborhoods

[5:34:41] can serve this combined load

[5:34:43] of water consumption and

[5:34:44] pollution. Residents near

[5:34:46] betty's facility in mansfield,

[5:34:48] georgia can no longer drink

[5:34:49] their water. We won't let that

[5:34:51] happen here. Your vote today

[5:34:52] proved we need binding

[5:34:54] standards before approvals, not

[5:34:57] after I'm asking you to commit

[5:34:58] now require conditional use

[5:34:59] permit instead of special use

[5:35:01] permits for data centers,

[5:35:02] mandate cumulative impact

[5:35:03] analysis and apply new

[5:35:04] standards or draft >> jordan

[5:35:07] followed by >> tate. Hi this is

[5:35:10] jordan muldowney d through

[5:35:12] resident thank you to council

[5:35:13] members toward ios and comté

[5:35:15] and the city staff for their

[5:35:16] memos that demonstrate forward

[5:35:17] thinking leadership on land

[5:35:19] use. I live in a ten year old

[5:35:21] apartment building in

[5:35:22] japantown. My neighbors and I

[5:35:24] contribute to the neighborhood,

[5:35:25] participate in neighborhood

[5:35:27] groups, walk or dogs pay taxes.

[5:35:30] we're not bogeymen. We live

[5:35:32] peacefully with our home owning

[5:35:33] neighbors. Our apartment our

[5:35:35] apartment was built with

[5:35:37] parking minimums. The parking

[5:35:39] is never close to full.

[5:35:41] families have many different

[5:35:43] shapes and sizes and many

[5:35:44] different transportation needs.

[5:35:46] setting parking minimums are

[5:35:47] unlikely to be too low but

[5:35:49] they're extremely likely to be

[5:35:50] too high. The staff report

[5:35:52] studied parking and determined

[5:35:54] that developers are still

[5:35:55] building it. We shouldn't be

[5:35:56] making policy based on failed

[5:35:58] pseudoscience. Please reject

[5:36:00] parking minimums and the

[5:36:01] negatives that they bring. I

[5:36:03] also support communities

[5:36:04] serving in residential areas

[5:36:06] and pickup zones as as talked

[5:36:08] about in huge council memos >>

[5:36:11] came before a unmute taped I'm

[5:36:13] going to call names of people

[5:36:16] in the room. Lina or liana

[5:36:19] olive lindy hayes, greg

[5:36:23] carlson, jeff pedulla and bill

[5:36:27] wolfe come on down >> and taped

[5:36:31] over to you. >> hello, I'm

[5:36:38] kate. I'm a homeowner in d10.

[5:36:40] I've lived here for about six

[5:36:41] years and I for one would

[5:36:42] welcome new neighbors and

[5:36:43] strongly support that missing

[5:36:45] middle proposal. I think we

[5:36:47] need at least three units

[5:36:48] probably probably more. As

[5:36:50] someone else pointed out to

[5:36:51] me to meet our housing goals.

[5:36:52] we don't need things like

[5:36:53] parking minimums. We can leave

[5:36:54] that up to individual sites to

[5:36:55] determine and they just add

[5:36:56] cost proposals. And please

[5:36:59] think of all the young families

[5:37:02] who aren't there tonight and

[5:37:03] can't express their voices and

[5:37:05] really need affordable housing

[5:37:07] in san jose. Thank you >> mayor

[5:37:12] mehan. Council members >>

[5:37:16] my name is liana all of I'm a

[5:37:17] resident and a member

[5:37:18] of concern corry neighborhood.

[5:37:20] I would like to thank the

[5:37:22] council members conduct

[5:37:24] countless and also ortiz and

[5:37:30] especially our district six

[5:37:33] councilmember malcolm mccarthy

[5:37:34] for listening to our concerns

[5:37:36] on the rezoning of the north

[5:37:37] winchester corridor and ferris

[5:37:39] forest avenue. The designations

[5:37:41] of mulan on winchester with

[5:37:43] forest to remain ryan and cc

[5:37:46] will not only provide for

[5:37:47] additional housing but will

[5:37:48] also preserved small businesses

[5:37:50] that generate greater tax

[5:37:51] revenue and put less strain on

[5:37:53] multiple services. Any other

[5:37:56] zoning will have a negative

[5:37:57] impact on the traffic safety,

[5:37:59] parking and integrity of the

[5:38:01] neighborhood and impact the

[5:38:02] ability of these businesses to

[5:38:04] survive. I would also urge you

[5:38:06] to reject the missing middle

[5:38:08] housing and continue to develop

[5:38:10] land as designated in the 2040

[5:38:13] >> general plan. >> thank you

[5:38:14] that your time next speaker

[5:38:16] christy. Right. Come on down,

[5:38:18] sam kurtzman worksman and

[5:38:22] sandra delavan. Go ahead. >>

[5:38:25] I'm linda hayes from concern

[5:38:26] corrie neighbors. There are two

[5:38:29] issues where we disagree with

[5:38:30] the planning department staff.

[5:38:32] the winchester corridor and

[5:38:35] identification of residential

[5:38:36] neighborhoods for the

[5:38:38] winchester corridor. We embrace

[5:38:40] the recommendations of our

[5:38:42] councilmember michael mulcahy

[5:38:45] to preserve the profitable

[5:38:47] small businesses along for us

[5:38:50] and to rezone as a mixed use

[5:38:53] neighborhood properties along

[5:38:55] winchester to permit housing.

[5:38:58] council member mulcahy's

[5:39:00] solution is better for our

[5:39:02] neighborhood and recognizes the

[5:39:05] housing needs of the city. I am

[5:39:09] thrilled for the densification

[5:39:13] issue. We think it is

[5:39:14] haphazard. Once it is done it

[5:39:17] cannot be undone. If the

[5:39:20] council has a compromise to

[5:39:22] propose we would very much like

[5:39:24] to hear it. Thank you. >> thank

[5:39:26] you. Next speaker. My name is

[5:39:33] greg carlson and I'm with

[5:39:35] concern corey neighbors. And

[5:39:37] this is an important moment not

[5:39:38] just in the winchester corridor

[5:39:40] in san jose but perhaps beyond.

[5:39:43] these are your concerns. Once

[5:39:45] sometime back you asked us to

[5:39:47] give you our votes to allow you

[5:39:49] to be sitting here today to

[5:39:50] represent our neighborhoods and

[5:39:52] to protect the safety and

[5:39:53] integrity of our neighborhoods

[5:39:54] and small businesses. Now is

[5:39:57] the time that we come to you to

[5:39:58] confirm that we the voters made

[5:40:00] the right decision. We asked

[5:40:02] you to protect the safety and

[5:40:03] integrity of our neighborhoods.

[5:40:05] we asked you to support our

[5:40:06] councilmember michael mulcahy's

[5:40:08] recommendation to not changing

[5:40:10] the forest avenue zoning and no

[5:40:13] more than mixed use residential

[5:40:14] on the designated parcels along

[5:40:16] the winchester corridor.

[5:40:18] including 826 north winchester.

[5:40:21] how much time do I have to

[5:40:23] build a vibrant downtown and

[5:40:26] put up two high rises around

[5:40:28] downtown? Perfect. Thank you.

[5:40:31] >> thank you. Next speaker.

[5:40:34] marni, come on down. And ken >>

[5:40:38] hillman. I'm jeff temple. I'm

[5:40:41] approaching this from a

[5:40:42] different angle. I submitted a

[5:40:47] legal ethics complaint to two

[5:40:50] projects in college park.

[5:40:54] applicable laws and procedures

[5:40:56] weren't followed. Then this is

[5:41:00] the 2012 emery street land

[5:41:03] deal. The pedestrian easement

[5:41:06] exists as a cloud on the title

[5:41:09] and the date of the recorded

[5:41:10] deed I saw was december 17th,

[5:41:14] 2012 but the matter was heard

[5:41:17] and passed by the council on

[5:41:19] the 18th. Thank you. >> thank

[5:41:24] you. Next speaker I >> urge you

[5:41:26] to vote no. The problem with

[5:41:28] this is the blanket approval to

[5:41:31] build high density housing on

[5:41:33] any residential lot. It doesn't

[5:41:36] make sense. My name is kristi

[5:41:38] wright and I moved to san jose

[5:41:39] 30 years ago because I found a

[5:41:41] neighborhood that has

[5:41:43] character. It feels safe. It's

[5:41:46] quiet at night. It has ample

[5:41:48] parking. There are front yards

[5:41:50] and backyards for the kids to

[5:41:52] play in. High density housing

[5:41:55] built right in the middle of a

[5:41:56] quiet block changes the fabric

[5:41:59] of the street and that

[5:42:00] neighborhood. I seriously doubt

[5:42:02] that any of you council members

[5:42:04] would like a high density unit

[5:42:06] built right next to your house.

[5:42:08] we need more housing to let's

[5:42:10] put it along the transit

[5:42:11] corridors like the award

[5:42:12] winning envision san jose 2040

[5:42:16] plan. There is a lot of space

[5:42:19] in san jose. Let's build where

[5:42:21] it makes sense. I also object

[5:42:23] to the lack of public input on

[5:42:26] this rezoning. Thank you that

[5:42:29] >> your time next speaker. Nick

[5:42:32] cochran come on down. I'm here

[5:42:36] >> today speaking as a board

[5:42:38] member of families and homes

[5:42:40] san jose at 100% volunteer

[5:42:44] locally based city grass >> a

[5:42:48] city wide grass neighborhood or

[5:42:50] group directly representing

[5:42:52] san jose residents and voters.

[5:42:54] I'm standing up here alone but

[5:42:56] others stand with me. I am

[5:42:58] presenting a petition titian

[5:43:00] signed by 4244 san jose

[5:43:03] residents. So I am actually

[5:43:05] speaking for those residents

[5:43:07] and more. We oppose the missing

[5:43:09] middle recommendation from the

[5:43:11] planning commission and staff.

[5:43:13] the following is my personal

[5:43:14] comment. We are here today

[5:43:16] because of decisions and votes

[5:43:18] made by 22 and 2023 by the city

[5:43:21] council and staff then who

[5:43:23] worked on the housing element.

[5:43:25] you were responsible for the

[5:43:27] situation today. Fix your

[5:43:30] error. Do not tell us you

[5:43:32] can't. You got us here. Please

[5:43:34] get us out of here. Thank you.

[5:43:37] thank you. That your time? Next

[5:43:41] speaker. >> I strongly support

[5:43:46] the memorandum from

[5:43:47] councilmember baltimore katie

[5:43:48] ortiz and has the >> compromise

[5:43:51] to replace all of the proposed

[5:43:53] user zoning with m1 along with

[5:43:54] the preservation of our and

[5:43:56] along the forest avenue is what

[5:43:57] makes sense for the winchester

[5:43:58] corridor. I have attended

[5:44:00] almost all of the general plan

[5:44:02] for review meetings and

[5:44:03] appreciate that the task force

[5:44:04] members did not support the

[5:44:06] staff's recommendation for u r

[5:44:08] and held multiple votes and

[5:44:09] also countered with proposals

[5:44:11] of m1 zoning in place of u r.

[5:44:14] corey residents understand that

[5:44:15] more housing is needed but u r

[5:44:16] zoning would not create housing

[5:44:18] that would actually benefit the

[5:44:19] potential new residents and

[5:44:21] would severely negatively

[5:44:22] impact the current ones. The

[5:44:23] already terrible traffic would

[5:44:24] be awful and further the lack

[5:44:26] of any parking mandate would be

[5:44:27] devastating to an area already

[5:44:28] impacted by overflow parking

[5:44:30] from valley fair that has been

[5:44:31] exacerbated since the increase

[5:44:33] the parking fees there area is

[5:44:35] not at all appropriate for u r

[5:44:36] zoning m u n zoning along the

[5:44:37] winchester boulevard and

[5:44:38] preserving r and along forest

[5:44:40] avenue is a reasonable

[5:44:41] compromise. Thank you. Thank

[5:44:44] you. Next >> speaker kooser jr

[5:44:46] woods come on down daisy mendez

[5:44:48] and julie finn harris. >>

[5:44:51] go ahead. We were here in june

[5:44:53] 2025 talking about 17 and 15

[5:44:56] story project zoning change

[5:44:58] at 826 north winchester with

[5:45:00] overwhelming opposition from

[5:45:02] the community the council

[5:45:04] thankfully denied. Now we are

[5:45:06] back again talking about

[5:45:08] rezoning multiple lots on the

[5:45:09] winchester corridor. I'm

[5:45:10] shocked that winchester

[5:45:11] boulevard is being targeted

[5:45:13] again given many members of the

[5:45:15] planning task force question

[5:45:17] why I would request that the

[5:45:19] issues of the densification

[5:45:21] of residential neighborhoods

[5:45:22] and the winchester corridor

[5:45:24] rezoning be considered

[5:45:26] separately. This would be

[5:45:28] similar to the action at the

[5:45:29] planning commission task force

[5:45:31] where the commissioners pulled

[5:45:32] out these two issues for

[5:45:34] discussion and had divided vote

[5:45:36] on the winchester corridor.

[5:45:38] unfortunately the planning

[5:45:39] director didn't spend any time

[5:45:41] explaining to the council the

[5:45:43] winchester corridor rezoning

[5:45:46] don't break the promise to this

[5:45:47] and as a neighborhoods don't

[5:45:49] go forward with the planning

[5:45:50] department's proposal, don't

[5:45:52] let. >> thank you that your

[5:45:55] time next speaker. Good

[5:46:04] evening. I live in 83 san jose.

[5:46:07] it's made up of distinct

[5:46:09] neighborhoods and this proposal

[5:46:10] can irreparably change and

[5:46:12] possibly destroy them. It will

[5:46:14] certainly negatively impact

[5:46:16] livability. A large influx

[5:46:18] of new residents will make the

[5:46:19] city even less habitable

[5:46:21] without more certainty, without

[5:46:23] more services and resources

[5:46:25] which you can't provide. Under

[5:46:27] this proposal neighbors will

[5:46:29] lose their ability to have

[5:46:31] input on future projects with

[5:46:33] only ministerial review and no

[5:46:35] subjective design requirements.

[5:46:37] historic call and preservation

[5:46:39] conservation districts which

[5:46:41] should be protected can be

[5:46:43] changed beyond recognition. I

[5:46:45] understand that the state is

[5:46:46] mandating many changes which

[5:46:49] san jose needs to comply with

[5:46:50] why the city is proposing to

[5:46:52] make even more draconian

[5:46:53] changes is frankly beyond

[5:46:55] my comprehension. You are

[5:46:56] making the current residents

[5:46:58] of the city plant part of a

[5:46:59] zoning experiment that will

[5:47:01] have unintended consequences.

[5:47:03] I'm just >> going. >> thank

[5:47:09] you. Next speaker roberta moore

[5:47:10] come on down rush patel and

[5:47:12] john leave it. Good evening.

[5:47:16] during the 45 years I've lived

[5:47:18] in san jose there have been

[5:47:19] city council decisions which I

[5:47:22] have not agreed but have always

[5:47:24] been able to understand and if

[5:47:26] not appreciate opposing points

[5:47:28] of view at least until now. The

[5:47:31] planning commission's recent 9

[5:47:33] to 2 decision to effectively

[5:47:35] nullify the envisioned san jose

[5:47:38] 2040 plan I recommending

[5:47:40] dramatic up zoning uniformly

[5:47:42] across all residential

[5:47:44] neighborhoods is misguided and

[5:47:47] in my view a complete

[5:47:48] abdication of the dissenting

[5:47:51] commissioners overall duty and

[5:47:53] responsibility to the citizens

[5:47:55] of san jose. Quite frankly I am

[5:47:58] done dumbfounded at finding

[5:48:01] myself in the position

[5:48:03] of having to vehemently voice

[5:48:05] subjection to this vacuous

[5:48:06] policy recommendation. I don't

[5:48:09] recall carmen since being given

[5:48:11] a leave of absence. I trust

[5:48:14] that common sense will thank >>

[5:48:16] you that your time next

[5:48:18] speaker. Carol last name I

[5:48:22] think heffley. Come on down,

[5:48:24] chandler three hand and sam.

[5:48:29] go ahead. >> while the city has

[5:48:31] the authority to rezone and

[5:48:34] pass ordinances a single family

[5:48:37] lot with existing deed

[5:48:40] restrictions cannot be made

[5:48:44] null and void by these actions.

[5:48:48] the enforcement of deed

[5:48:50] restrictions is a civil court

[5:48:53] >> matter between private

[5:48:56] properties parties. Excuse

[5:48:59] me >>. Our neighborhoods will

[5:49:01] actively defend to our

[5:49:03] restrictions of one residential

[5:49:06] unit per lot in court against

[5:49:10] any and all development on our

[5:49:13] deed restricted single family

[5:49:17] >> lots. Obviously I oppose >>

[5:49:20] this. I'd like to thank the

[5:49:21] building and these guys for

[5:49:23] showing chuckie cheese and the

[5:49:25] first slide. That is six more

[5:49:29] stories >> to go. >> thank you

[5:49:32] that your time. Next speaker.

[5:49:37] >> hi there. I'm judy finn

[5:49:40] harris. I live in cary and I'm

[5:49:42] a renter and I've been laid off

[5:49:45] and >> I am really still hoping

[5:49:48] to make san jose my home to put

[5:49:51] down roots here, maybe invite

[5:49:52] >> my son and his girlfriend as

[5:49:54] they hope to build. Well, we're

[5:49:56] not saying what they're hoping

[5:49:57] to build yet >> but one thing

[5:50:00] that really it's so special

[5:50:02] about san jose is the diverse

[5:50:05] >> and distinct neighborhoods.

[5:50:08] each one has their own

[5:50:09] characteristics and that's the

[5:50:12] result of years of careful

[5:50:14] planning, thoughtful

[5:50:15] consideration done hand-in-hand

[5:50:18] with our community >> members.

[5:50:21] so I urge the council to please

[5:50:23] make sure that there's enough

[5:50:24] time to do this to make the

[5:50:27] thoughtful decisions that won't

[5:50:29] negatively impact our

[5:50:30] neighborhoods by rushing

[5:50:33] something >> and to preserve

[5:50:34] that character. And yes, I

[5:50:35] support our district. Markey's

[5:50:39] proposal. Thank you. >> can you

[5:50:47] hear me? Yes. About two weeks

[5:50:50] >> ago I came to the planning

[5:50:51] group and I asked her hearing

[5:50:53] about data centers and that's

[5:50:55] coming up. I very strongly

[5:50:57] recommend you put data centers

[5:50:59] high on the list of things to

[5:51:00] add to your generic general

[5:51:02] plan. You wisely called for a

[5:51:04] meeting tomorrow night. You'll

[5:51:05] hear more about it. Then on

[5:51:07] residential that issue also

[5:51:10] covers water power and open

[5:51:13] space. And I ask you to

[5:51:14] recommend that you spend some

[5:51:16] time looking at the ibm

[5:51:19] property because you're going

[5:51:20] to need open space for more

[5:51:22] people living here. You don't

[5:51:24] want the power being taken from

[5:51:26] the people to raise the price

[5:51:27] of power to the people that

[5:51:28] live in our houses here. You

[5:51:30] should use the power you

[5:51:32] got from manufacturing and keep

[5:51:34] the prices down as low as you

[5:51:36] can. And number three like some

[5:51:38] company like ours like green

[5:51:40] cloud it's not good to use

[5:51:42] water in a data center. I

[5:51:44] really respect what you're

[5:51:45] doing. You've got to bury thank

[5:51:46] god and keep it up. Thank you.

[5:51:49] next speaker roberto moore

[5:51:56] housing commission speaking

[5:51:58] personally. Miss information is

[5:52:00] driving >> this proposal since

[5:52:03] 2000 >> 15 h c d decertified >>

[5:52:07] seven city e's and fined two

[5:52:10] one and they were all for very

[5:52:13] serious violations >> despite

[5:52:16] verbal conversations not one

[5:52:19] involved council rejecting >> a

[5:52:21] density proposal not one. This

[5:52:26] proposal >> will undermined >>

[5:52:29] our city's preservation goals.

[5:52:34] barriers to affordable housing

[5:52:36] are >> financing and costs, not

[5:52:39] density and land. How did staff

[5:52:43] get this so >> wrong? Garbage

[5:52:46] in, garbage out require >>

[5:52:49] staff to separate legal

[5:52:50] mandates from discretionary

[5:52:52] choices measure the impact and

[5:52:55] >> thank you that your time. A

[5:52:59] meal jack and ah. Come on down.

[5:53:03] kelly macdonagh >> and gerry

[5:53:06] giles. >> good evening. My name

[5:53:09] is sam district nine and me a

[5:53:12] vice mayor and the city

[5:53:14] council. Thank you for your

[5:53:15] leadership. I know you care

[5:53:16] about this city and make the

[5:53:18] best decisions. We ask you to

[5:53:21] keep >> the promise. The

[5:53:23] promise is what make america >>

[5:53:25] america. We love countries that

[5:53:28] have law of the jungle. They

[5:53:30] make laws along the way and

[5:53:31] they mess up quantities of life

[5:53:33] of people and people live. I

[5:53:34] left there for 50 years. I

[5:53:36] never come back to that

[5:53:38] communist country today let us

[5:53:41] honor >> that. When people

[5:53:42] choose a single housing they

[5:53:44] choose single housing. When

[5:53:46] they choose a community where

[5:53:48] their the kids go to the

[5:53:49] certain schools they want to

[5:53:51] go to those schools. Let's not

[5:53:53] mess up that community. Let's

[5:53:54] not put density where it

[5:53:56] belongs to a place where there

[5:53:58] are works. So please honor >>

[5:54:01] that promise. Help them to keep

[5:54:02] their promise and we ask you to

[5:54:04] keep the promise that keep

[5:54:06] single housing single housing.

[5:54:08] >> next speaker I'm jonathan

[5:54:17] and I have lived >> in san jose

[5:54:19] for almost 43 years and I like

[5:54:23] the neighborhood I live in. In

[5:54:25] fact most of my neighbors have

[5:54:27] lived around us are almost 2530

[5:54:30] plus. >> so this proposal was

[5:54:33] permanently destroyed. That

[5:54:35] community feeling we have if

[5:54:38] you make this decision is not

[5:54:40] something you can reverse once

[5:54:42] it happens it's going to affect

[5:54:44] central day forever. Another

[5:54:46] question I have is what problem

[5:54:48] are resolving california

[5:54:51] population is going down.

[5:54:53] people are moving out. In fact

[5:54:56] the net loss of population in

[5:54:58] california is wonderful and

[5:55:00] this kind of decision by the

[5:55:02] state is pushing more people

[5:55:04] out. They are moving to the

[5:55:06] state where this kind of junk

[5:55:08] is not thrown at them. And

[5:55:10] second thing is even in

[5:55:13] san jose for the last ten years

[5:55:15] are more we are losing point 3%

[5:55:18] >> every thank you that your

[5:55:20] time next speaker david noel

[5:55:24] come on down and tom wilson. >>

[5:55:29] good evening mayor and council

[5:55:31] members my name is maharshi

[5:55:32] patel and I'm a resident

[5:55:34] of district eight. I'm speaking

[5:55:35] tonight in support

[5:55:37] of increasing density to 32

[5:55:38] dwelling units per acre in our

[5:55:40] one zone areas. My generation

[5:55:42] went to school here, worked

[5:55:44] hard. Ghada got her degrees and

[5:55:46] became working professionals.

[5:55:48] yeah we're completely priced

[5:55:49] out of the very neighborhood

[5:55:50] that we grew up in. We're in a

[5:55:52] tough spot that we don't

[5:55:53] qualify for affordable housing

[5:55:55] and we can't afford the

[5:55:56] standard market rate housing as

[5:55:57] well because previous

[5:55:59] generations bought their home,

[5:56:01] bought one, their home prices

[5:56:02] were 3 to 4 times lower and

[5:56:04] interest rates were

[5:56:05] increasingly lower. Longtime

[5:56:07] residents are understandably

[5:56:09] staying put but without new

[5:56:11] housing options there is simply

[5:56:12] no room for young families and

[5:56:14] working professionals like us

[5:56:15] to move in. This isn't just

[5:56:17] about housing. It's about the

[5:56:19] future of our community. When

[5:56:20] young families can't afford to

[5:56:21] live here, our public schools

[5:56:23] lose enrollment and that they

[5:56:25] desperately need to stay open.

[5:56:26] in the past year we've seen

[5:56:28] multiple schools close this.

[5:56:31] thank you. That's your time.

[5:56:34] sandra mckinnon come on down

[5:56:35] and robert mckinnon >> hi my my

[5:56:40] name is jack adler. I am an

[5:56:42] immigrant from india. I grew up

[5:56:44] in india in a city I came to

[5:56:47] chicago, lived in a city lived

[5:56:49] in york, lived in philadelphia

[5:56:51] before moving here, lived it

[5:56:54] until we have a child who had a

[5:56:55] child. We moved to glen because

[5:56:58] we wanted a room. We wanted

[5:57:02] backyard I my job was in

[5:57:04] san francisco, still chose to

[5:57:06] live here and commute. What

[5:57:09] this proposal is doing is

[5:57:10] removing choice from people and

[5:57:12] that is un-american. Inherently

[5:57:15] people who like cities can live

[5:57:17] here. There is there is an

[5:57:18] apartment building across from

[5:57:20] city hall that has 15 open

[5:57:23] apartments. Nobody's renting

[5:57:25] them there, is there is if you

[5:57:28] want to live in middle there is

[5:57:32] there are areas like that we

[5:57:35] the the planning of the

[5:57:37] planning commission should >>

[5:57:40] that's your time next speaker.

[5:57:44] >> hi I'm kelly mcdonough. I'm

[5:57:49] speaking today as a member

[5:57:51] of sharon corey neighbors to

[5:57:52] urge you to reject the high

[5:57:53] density mixed use rezoning for

[5:57:55] north winchester boulevard. The

[5:57:57] foundational principle

[5:57:58] of transit oriented development

[5:58:00] is pairing high density housing

[5:58:01] with high capacity frequent

[5:58:03] transit. This proposal aligns

[5:58:05] with those standards. Direct

[5:58:07] service on this stretch relies

[5:58:08] on a single bus route vta 60

[5:58:11] with busses running 20 20

[5:58:12] minutes apart because line 16

[5:58:14] navigates major freeway

[5:58:16] chokepoints and airport

[5:58:17] terminals. It suffers from

[5:58:18] routine delays. There's no

[5:58:20] light rail, no heavy rail, no

[5:58:21] dedicated transit lane along

[5:58:23] this segment. Assuming future

[5:58:25] residents won't drive here is

[5:58:26] unrealistic. Without true rapid

[5:58:28] transit infrastructure, high

[5:58:29] density rezoning will create

[5:58:31] car dependent development

[5:58:32] spilling traffic into parking

[5:58:34] overflow directly into our

[5:58:35] neighborhood. I support michael

[5:58:37] mckay's proposal to leave the

[5:58:39] forest businesses alone and to

[5:58:41] limit the winchester sites to

[5:58:42] mixed use neighborhood zoning.

[5:58:44] thank you. Thank you. Next

[5:58:47] speaker. >> it is proposed up

[5:58:53] zoning helps the city. Helps

[5:58:55] corporations helps developers

[5:58:57] and helps billionaires. But

[5:58:59] this predatory proposal is

[5:59:01] at the expense of all working

[5:59:03] class neighborhoods. Yes, up

[5:59:05] zoning raises desperate

[5:59:08] desperately needed property tax

[5:59:09] revenue for the city and county

[5:59:11] and it helps the tech pros by

[5:59:13] building housing for their

[5:59:14] employees. But this is at the

[5:59:16] expense of we the people of the

[5:59:19] majority who you are supposed

[5:59:21] to be representing. Working

[5:59:23] class residents bought modest

[5:59:25] single family homes in san jose

[5:59:27] to escape the pack like sardine

[5:59:30] density of apartment living.

[5:59:32] now you want to bring apartment

[5:59:34] living density to their

[5:59:35] neighborhoods based on 1100

[5:59:39] pages of letters written to the

[5:59:41] city regarding zoning. The

[5:59:43] public is overwhelmingly

[5:59:45] opposed. This is your worst

[5:59:47] solution to the housing crisis

[5:59:49] yet so I urge you to vote

[5:59:51] against it. Thank you. >> thank

[5:59:53] you. Next speaker elva wilson

[5:59:56] enrique navarro and gene hunt.

[5:59:59] come on down. Go ahead. >> good

[6:00:03] evening. Honorable mayor and

[6:00:04] city council. I'm dave noel,

[6:00:07] district nine resident

[6:00:08] neighborhood leader and present

[6:00:09] of erickson neighborhood

[6:00:10] association. I urge you to

[6:00:12] adopt the following strategy

[6:00:13] for missing rental housing. >>

[6:00:15] first conform residential

[6:00:16] neighborhood densities with

[6:00:17] current state laws. Second add

[6:00:20] a minimum parking requirement

[6:00:21] for residential neighborhoods

[6:00:23] of one off street parking space

[6:00:24] per unit as allowed by sb nine.

[6:00:27] and third advocate at the state

[6:00:29] >> level to resolve the

[6:00:30] construction defect liability

[6:00:32] laws that currently prevent

[6:00:33] building condos which can

[6:00:35] provide the missing little

[6:00:36] housing we need at scale. Here

[6:00:39] are some benefits matching

[6:00:40] state requirements will allow

[6:00:42] sharing best practices with

[6:00:43] neighboring cities, reducing

[6:00:45] staff time and preserving

[6:00:46] capacity to address future

[6:00:48] state laws. Changes locating

[6:00:50] missing middle housing and

[6:00:51] transit corridors will improve

[6:00:53] vmt, tree canopy and service

[6:00:55] delivery while creating

[6:00:56] walkable neighborhoods.

[6:00:58] finally, conforming to state

[6:01:00] law will prevent local

[6:01:01] government mistrust when

[6:01:02] residents become aware of it.

[6:01:05] thank >> you that your time

[6:01:06] next speaker. This housing

[6:01:12] crisis is nothing compared to

[6:01:15] the number of new crises you

[6:01:17] will create if you

[6:01:19] indiscriminately start packing

[6:01:21] and stacking people in

[6:01:22] neighborhoods currently zoned

[6:01:24] for single family homes. Do not

[6:01:27] pack and stack people without

[6:01:29] full realization that each

[6:01:31] dwelling and each individual

[6:01:33] require water resources which

[6:01:35] we're already trying to

[6:01:36] conserve energy, power impact

[6:01:40] garbage and sewer systems. Each

[6:01:43] person deserves to count on

[6:01:44] san jose's first responders

[6:01:46] police, fire, ambulance

[6:01:48] hospitals all of which are

[6:01:50] already overtaxed and

[6:01:52] functioning below optimal staff

[6:01:54] levels. Traffic is impacted

[6:01:57] significantly and there's a

[6:01:59] much longer list. It is

[6:02:01] negligent to pack and stack

[6:02:04] people in san jose's single

[6:02:06] family home neighborhoods. You

[6:02:07] will only be creating a variety

[6:02:10] of new crises. >> thank you.

[6:02:13] next speaker down with the

[6:02:19] update on the city's plan to up

[6:02:21] zoned high density housing and

[6:02:23] single family neighborhoods >>

[6:02:24] is just bad. Do not kill the

[6:02:26] american dream. Working class

[6:02:29] families that worked hard all

[6:02:30] their lives to achieve the

[6:02:32] american dream of owning a

[6:02:34] single family home should not

[6:02:36] have that stripped away. This

[6:02:38] entire proposal only benefits

[6:02:40] >> rich developers, rich

[6:02:42] companies and politicians who

[6:02:44] want to get rich from campaign

[6:02:46] contributions and kickbacks. We

[6:02:49] need our city us to fight for

[6:02:51] us and not special interest

[6:02:53] groups. Protect our rights to a

[6:02:55] decent standard of living and

[6:02:57] their pursuit of happiness.

[6:02:59] san jose is already facing an

[6:03:01] infrastructure crisis with the

[6:03:03] need for electrical power,

[6:03:04] water, road repair and parking.

[6:03:07] adding more people to a

[6:03:08] neighborhood that was never

[6:03:10] designed or intended to

[6:03:11] accommodate that amount

[6:03:12] of people is just plain crazy.

[6:03:15] >> thank you. Next speaker greg

[6:03:18] peralta. Come on down. Doris

[6:03:20] lives and seek. Good evening.

[6:03:25] >> my name is robert wilson. 36

[6:03:28] year resident of deep. I've

[6:03:30] pretty >> aggressively and

[6:03:33] dramatically increasing

[6:03:35] unmandated levels of density

[6:03:38] will have greater negative

[6:03:39] impacts >> in lower income east

[6:03:42] san jose. We >> know it will be

[6:03:45] a fresh tool for predatory

[6:03:47] landlords to exploit vulnerable

[6:03:50] tenants by cramming even more

[6:03:53] renters into tiny cramped

[6:03:55] spaces to house people like

[6:03:58] cattle. Accepting this proposal

[6:04:01] is bad for all of san jose but

[6:04:05] it is systemic oppression for

[6:04:08] lower income neighborhoods.

[6:04:10] please >> consider the negative

[6:04:13] unintended consequences. Thank

[6:04:15] you. >> your next speaker. Good

[6:04:21] evening mayor and council. I'm

[6:04:22] cannavaro with the santa clara

[6:04:23] county association of realtors.

[6:04:25] to build housing and plan for

[6:04:27] growth in a responsible way, we

[6:04:28] shouldn't ignore transportation

[6:04:29] and parking consequences that

[6:04:31] come with increased density in

[6:04:34] low density neighborhoods. When

[6:04:35] more homes are added to an

[6:04:36] existing neighborhood, there

[6:04:37] will be more vehicles, more

[6:04:39] trips, more vehicle miles

[6:04:40] traveled and a greater

[6:04:41] competition for limited parking

[6:04:43] space. Those impacts need to be

[6:04:44] evaluated before density

[6:04:46] increases are approved or not

[6:04:47] after residents are already

[6:04:49] dealing with the consequences.

[6:04:50] that's one reason why we

[6:04:51] support concentrating growth in

[6:04:53] planned growth areas in mixed

[6:04:54] use corridors where

[6:04:55] transportation and

[6:04:56] infrastructure planning can

[6:04:58] better keep pace of development

[6:04:59] and >> housing affordability

[6:05:01] and supply is key and we do not

[6:05:03] need to sacrifice parking and

[6:05:04] increased street congestion to

[6:05:05] accomplish either. We need to

[6:05:07] think about how people

[6:05:08] primarily get around where they

[6:05:09] park and whether the

[6:05:11] surrounding infrastructure can

[6:05:12] accommodate the additional

[6:05:13] demand. So please support the

[6:05:15] man foley campos cohen and

[6:05:17] casey memo and the candela

[6:05:18] ortiz mulcahy memo which

[6:05:20] address these concerns and

[6:05:21] which have a deep >> thank you

[6:05:23] that your time lynn respects

[6:05:26] key. Come on down marin sader

[6:05:29] quest and jessica home. Good

[6:05:33] evening council and mayor. I am

[6:05:38] a 55 year resident in a single

[6:05:41] family neighborhood. I'm from

[6:05:43] district one. I'm present

[6:05:45] of the murdoch neighborhood

[6:05:46] association and I represent

[6:05:49] their opinions on this matter.

[6:05:51] I'm here to say I don't object

[6:05:53] to growth. We do need it but it

[6:05:56] needs to be carefully

[6:05:57] considered. Ample parking

[6:05:59] definitely needs to be

[6:06:00] considered as well as keeping

[6:06:02] trees. I'm a tree advocate. The

[6:06:06] state legislation already has

[6:06:08] sb nine, sb 310 and sb 79 to

[6:06:12] produce enough housing. Please

[6:06:15] leave the neighborhoods alone

[6:06:17] and focus on the numerous areas

[6:06:19] near existing transit as >>

[6:06:21] people who buy there won't need

[6:06:23] cars. Sb 330 says downsizing a

[6:06:27] property after it has been up

[6:06:29] zoned is legally restricted. In

[6:06:32] other words, please be >> thank

[6:06:35] you that your time? Steven

[6:06:40] meyer come on down and michael

[6:06:43] gordon. >> good evening.

[6:06:45] my name is greg. I'm with the

[6:06:47] santa clara county association

[6:06:48] of realtors. I'm here asking

[6:06:50] you to support the megan foley

[6:06:52] campus coin in casey memo. This

[6:06:55] memo strikes the right balance

[6:06:57] by meeting state housing

[6:06:58] mandates and avoids builder

[6:07:00] remedy. It adds parking

[6:07:03] triggers environmental reviews

[6:07:05] above certain density

[6:07:06] thresholds and allows light

[6:07:08] commercial uses for walkable

[6:07:10] neighborhoods. Thank you. >>

[6:07:13] thank you. Next speaker rebecca

[6:07:15] selden. Stephanie >> legs aa

[6:07:18] and david hind all come on down

[6:07:20] . >> good evening mayor and

[6:07:23] council members. My name is

[6:07:24] jessica home and I'm here to

[6:07:26] support planning staff's

[6:07:27] recommendations for a workable

[6:07:29] missing middle housing

[6:07:30] framework and the urban

[6:07:31] residential designation along

[6:07:33] winchester especially for the

[6:07:34] a26 north winchester boulevard

[6:07:36] >> project. As a millennial,

[6:07:38] many of my friends >> in

[6:07:40] san jose's still live with

[6:07:41] their parents and >> I know a

[6:07:42] lot of these people have talked

[6:07:43] about how hard they work but I

[6:07:44] think we work hard too and

[6:07:46] things are different now. We

[6:07:47] can't buy homes the way that we

[6:07:48] used to and now they're having

[6:07:50] children of their own and

[6:07:50] they're stuck in the same homes

[6:07:51] they grew up with. That's six

[6:07:53] people one bathroom, three

[6:07:54] bedrooms like that is just not

[6:07:56] a hypothetical housing crisis.

[6:07:57] it's happening right now and it

[6:07:59] is untenable. And just because

[6:08:01] some people don't get to

[6:08:02] eat all the cake they want

[6:08:03] doesn't mean that the rest

[6:08:04] of us shouldn't be able to

[6:08:05] eat at all. Please support

[6:08:07] staff's recommendations and

[6:08:09] give san jose the opportunity

[6:08:10] to build a homes that residents

[6:08:12] not just now but in the future

[6:08:14] desperately need. Thank you.

[6:08:17] thank you speaker. >> hello,

[6:08:20] I'm lynn pesci from district

[6:08:22] six and I'm here to urge the

[6:08:23] council to reject the proposal

[6:08:25] for up zoning citywide. Read

[6:08:27] our current guidelines and

[6:08:29] state laws already include

[6:08:30] opportunities to build for the

[6:08:32] missing middle but on a smaller

[6:08:33] scale. And as we implement

[6:08:35] these missing little guidelines

[6:08:37] we need to evaluate their

[6:08:39] impact on parking traffic, tree

[6:08:41] canopy and the use of services

[6:08:43] before we jump into more

[6:08:45] dramatic changes. Even if the

[6:08:47] proposed guidelines are put

[6:08:48] into place, they're going to be

[6:08:49] difficult to reverse and I

[6:08:51] really feel strongly that

[6:08:52] residents need to have the

[6:08:53] opportunity to give input

[6:08:55] regarding the developments that

[6:08:56] will have significant effects

[6:08:58] on their neighborhoods in the

[6:08:59] future. Thank >> you. Thank

[6:09:02] you. Your next speaker. Good

[6:09:07] evening >> mayor and council

[6:09:08] members. I'm marin sater,

[6:09:10] present of willow glen

[6:09:11] neighborhood association. We

[6:09:13] are not against housing. We

[6:09:14] support making san jose more

[6:09:16] affordable for future residents

[6:09:17] while respecting those who

[6:09:19] already >> call san jose home.

[6:09:21] because this proposal >> is

[6:09:22] discretionary. We should have

[6:09:24] data showing that this

[6:09:25] additional density will improve

[6:09:27] affordability and residents

[6:09:29] should have a meaningful voice

[6:09:30] in decisions affecting their

[6:09:31] communities. California has

[6:09:33] already enacted significant new

[6:09:35] housing laws. Why not wait and

[6:09:37] see their impact before going

[6:09:38] further? We also need to

[6:09:41] understand the impacts >> on

[6:09:42] infrastructure parking,

[6:09:44] livability >> and tree canopy

[6:09:45] goals. I asked the council to

[6:09:47] remove the proposed 8 to 32

[6:09:49] dwelling units per acre

[6:09:50] increase >> for residential

[6:09:51] neighborhoods. Then please take

[6:09:54] a thoughtful look >> before

[6:09:55] making meaningful making

[6:09:57] widespread changes that may

[6:09:58] conflict with the city's own

[6:10:00] transportation, public safety

[6:10:01] and environmental >> goals.

[6:10:03] thank you. Thank you. Next >>

[6:10:05] speaker. Hello mayor and

[6:10:10] council. I'm michael gordon,

[6:10:12] the present of the santa clara

[6:10:14] county association of realtors

[6:10:15] and a district ten resident. I

[6:10:18] think the public's concerns are

[6:10:19] clear and I appreciate that the

[6:10:22] balanced approach. The memo

[6:10:23] from mayor mehan, vice mayor

[6:10:25] foley and the council members

[6:10:27] campos, cohen and casey as it

[6:10:30] strikes the right balance. It

[6:10:32] meets the state housing

[6:10:33] mandates, avoids builders

[6:10:35] remedy addresses parking

[6:10:37] triggers, environmental review

[6:10:39] above certain density

[6:10:40] thresholds and allows light

[6:10:42] commercial uses for walkable

[6:10:43] neighborhoods. Please support

[6:10:45] the memo and the candidates

[6:10:48] ortiz and mulcahy memo. I think

[6:10:52] the public is demanding real

[6:10:53] transparency. They deserve more

[6:10:55] outreach, accessible online

[6:10:57] participation and stakeholder

[6:10:59] engagement well ahead of major

[6:11:01] decisions like this one. Show

[6:11:03] the residents exactly what's

[6:11:05] affected on the map. Publish an

[6:11:07] interactive address searchable

[6:11:09] map that shows exactly what. >>

[6:11:11] thank you. That's your time.

[6:11:14] alan. Go ahead, david. But

[6:11:17] alan. Jamie >> waite, joanie

[6:11:20] murphy, betsy tanner, pamela m.

[6:11:24] come on down. >> mr. Mayor,

[6:11:28] council members. I'm exhausted.

[6:11:29] I'm sure you are too. I thought

[6:11:31] I'd give you a quick summary

[6:11:33] of the letter I sent you. I

[6:11:34] thought I was going to have

[6:11:35] 30s. I urge you to approve

[6:11:37] them. The mason etc. Memo and

[6:11:40] certainly the ken dallas memo

[6:11:42] which I'd rather fortuitous as

[6:11:44] his name was first. I'd ask you

[6:11:46] though to do one thing and

[6:11:48] eight dwelling units per acre

[6:11:49] to the environmental review. We

[6:11:52] don't know if we don't consider

[6:11:55] >> the current conditions while

[6:11:57] we talk about up zoning we're

[6:11:59] missing the boat. It's >> hard

[6:12:01] to respond to mr. Burton's

[6:12:03] telephone calls since many

[6:12:05] of the things that we have

[6:12:06] heard are different. I also

[6:12:09] urge you to defer this citywide

[6:12:10] rezoning matter. All you had to

[6:12:12] do is hear the hundreds

[6:12:13] of people today. It's not

[6:12:15] necessary under sb 79 as we see

[6:12:18] the situation and also direct

[6:12:20] staff to study all fire risk

[6:12:21] areas. And I got another one

[6:12:24] but I don't have time. Thank

[6:12:26] you very much. Thank you. Next

[6:12:29] speaker. Good afternoon. I am

[6:12:37] part of councilmember casey's

[6:12:40] district and I appreciate that

[6:12:44] I have a chance to tell >> you

[6:12:45] that I am definitely opposed to

[6:12:47] the missing middle >> project.

[6:12:50] I think that that would destroy

[6:12:52] the single family dwelling. Our

[6:12:55] biggest asset my biggest asset

[6:12:57] is my home. You're asking to

[6:13:01] destroy a neighborhood in our

[6:13:02] homes? Councilmember casey, I

[6:13:06] >> actually have to say I

[6:13:07] haven't seen your memo with the

[6:13:09] others so I can't really

[6:13:10] comment on it. But when you

[6:13:12] were and you said you were

[6:13:14] going to put a lot

[6:13:14] of development downtown

[6:13:16] san jose. I'm not sure if that

[6:13:17] memo addressed that so I would

[6:13:20] hope that you would put that in

[6:13:22] you also downtown have the 20

[6:13:26] 2040 plan already in place. So

[6:13:29] aren't we going to run with

[6:13:30] that? >> thank you. Thank you.

[6:13:33] next speaker I'm joyce. Last

[6:13:36] name starts with an e. Go go

[6:13:39] ahead and go up to the

[6:13:40] microphone. It looks like

[6:13:43] kevin golden winchester

[6:13:45] corridor >> arts morris and

[6:13:48] kelly irani. Come on down. >> I

[6:13:52] urge you to push back to the

[6:13:54] state and please represent our

[6:13:57] interests. There is a lot

[6:13:59] of properties here that aren't

[6:14:01] even full. They might be a 20%

[6:14:04] capacity and adjacent >> right

[6:14:07] next to 280 and winchester.

[6:14:10] there's a really big building

[6:14:12] and I wonder if it's only 20%

[6:14:14] filled and 80% vacant. Why

[6:14:17] don't you take all the

[6:14:19] buildings that exist and make

[6:14:22] sure they're at full capacity

[6:14:24] and make sure that at least 50%

[6:14:29] of the units are lower? Lower

[6:14:33] priced housing and concentrate

[6:14:36] things near near where

[6:14:39] transportation is. Every

[6:14:42] apartment needs to have two

[6:14:44] cars. I mean in my 30 year old

[6:14:47] daughter is not going to get in

[6:14:49] one of your bike lanes down

[6:14:51] stevens creek. Thank you. That

[6:14:54] your time? Harry neal come on

[6:14:56] down, antonio. Deborah newcomb

[6:14:59] . Thank you >> mayor and

[6:15:01] council members for listening

[6:15:02] to all of us. I know it's not

[6:15:03] easy with all of us here

[6:15:04] tonight but on behalf of the

[6:15:06] vpi community association 82, I

[6:15:08] urge you to reject this

[6:15:09] recommendation and send it back

[6:15:11] to the planning department.

[6:15:13] council is being asked to make

[6:15:14] significant land use changes

[6:15:15] based in part on warnings about

[6:15:18] decertification builders remedy

[6:15:20] and state enforcement. Those

[6:15:22] are serious consequences for

[6:15:23] sure, but the connection to the

[6:15:25] specific proposals need to be

[6:15:27] demonstrated and not simply

[6:15:29] asserted require staff to

[6:15:31] clearly separate what state law

[6:15:33] actually mandates from what

[6:15:35] represents discretionary policy

[6:15:37] choices and if rejecting these

[6:15:40] density changes truly puts

[6:15:42] san jose at risk

[6:15:43] of decertification. Require

[6:15:45] staff to provide the specific

[6:15:47] legal basis and relevant

[6:15:49] precedent along with a complete

[6:15:51] analysis of the impacts on

[6:15:52] infrastructure displacement,

[6:15:54] affordable >> housing and

[6:15:56] existing neighborhoods along

[6:15:57] with meaningful >>

[6:15:58] alternatives. Thank you. >>

[6:16:01] next speaker also amy tran, tom

[6:16:05] tran, jack lin and ruth

[6:16:07] callahan. Come on down. >> hey

[6:16:12] mayor. Councilmember michael.

[6:16:14] first off, I'm our memories

[6:16:16] from the neighborhood and I

[6:16:18] foley support michael mulcahy's

[6:16:21] recommendations. Why? Well,

[6:16:23] come on. He's a genius, right?

[6:16:24] we all know that. So san jose.

[6:16:28] we're missing the middle,

[6:16:31] right? We have single family.

[6:16:32] we have tall buildings. The

[6:16:33] worse the middle and winchester

[6:16:34] corridor has an opportunity to

[6:16:37] work with that. And we have

[6:16:38] several buildings where if you

[6:16:40] make it a mixed use

[6:16:41] neighborhood we can build this

[6:16:44] middle right and have plenty

[6:16:46] of housing which is a win for

[6:16:47] san jose. It's a win for the

[6:16:49] cary neighborhood and it's a

[6:16:50] win for california. So please

[6:16:52] stick with his recommendation.

[6:16:53] thank you. >> thank you. Next

[6:16:55] speaker. Good evening. My name

[6:17:00] is kelly aurora. I'm the

[6:17:02] director of entitlements for

[6:17:03] vici, which is a minority owned

[6:17:05] company that is under

[6:17:07] construction on two sites on

[6:17:09] paige avenue in san jose and

[6:17:11] has a couple more in the

[6:17:12] building permit process. We'd

[6:17:14] like to >> do more. We received

[6:17:16] early denial over a year ago

[6:17:18] at 826 north winchester. When

[6:17:21] councilmember mccain the

[6:17:22] balance of the council asked to

[6:17:24] study more reasonable

[6:17:25] densities, our staff spent a

[6:17:27] year doing that with extensive

[6:17:30] public outreach and concluded

[6:17:33] that winchester corridor is

[6:17:35] near transit high grossing

[6:17:37] retail and their jobs are staff

[6:17:41] studies and made a careful

[6:17:43] logical recommendation that we

[6:17:45] support. Still if >> you don't

[6:17:49] do it here where are you going

[6:17:50] to do it? Where are you going

[6:17:52] to put the working people where

[6:17:55] they can live, work, play and

[6:17:56] stay? I think this is it. I

[6:17:58] don't think they're evil that

[6:18:00] they want to live in apartments

[6:18:01] >> and it's that's your time.

[6:18:03] thank you. Vests hermanas matt

[6:18:10] , I can't read the last name.

[6:18:13] it starts with an s and bob

[6:18:14] valderrama. Come on >> down.

[6:18:17] go >> ahead. Good evening,

[6:18:19] mayor. Council members thank

[6:18:21] you, staff for your time and

[6:18:22] listening to us today. My name

[6:18:23] is tom chen. I'm the present

[6:18:25] of california small builders

[6:18:26] association representing

[6:18:28] homebuilders and contract

[6:18:29] contractors all across

[6:18:30] california. We support the

[6:18:32] planning commission's

[6:18:33] recommendation for a missing

[6:18:34] middle housing. Please maintain

[6:18:36] the allowable density of 32

[6:18:38] units an acre citywide to allow

[6:18:40] housing without adding new

[6:18:41] parking requirements. This

[6:18:43] could help us be our housing

[6:18:44] needs by creating new starter

[6:18:45] homes for first time

[6:18:46] homebuyers. As you may know,

[6:18:48] san jose has been ranked the

[6:18:49] most expensive city to live so

[6:18:52] san jose is actually making

[6:18:53] great progress on creating new

[6:18:54] pathways for homeownership with

[6:18:56] the recent 80s sell as you may

[6:18:58] have heard that sold to a

[6:18:59] contractor. So that's our

[6:19:00] working class community that

[6:19:02] needs a house right here. They

[6:19:04] love to work here. Why can't

[6:19:05] they live here? This is finally

[6:19:07] the time to create houses for

[6:19:08] that. At the same time we need

[6:19:10] a way to be scalable model and

[6:19:13] then we need transparency is

[6:19:14] important for homeowners we

[6:19:15] respect the homeowners can as

[6:19:17] san jose publish an interactive

[6:19:19] map. >> thank you. That's your

[6:19:21] time. Next speaker alex shaw.

[6:19:25] come on down. Chris sava and

[6:19:27] aurelia sanchez. >> evening,

[6:19:29] mayor mahan and council

[6:19:31] members. I'm solomon. I'm

[6:19:32] actually a blossom valley

[6:19:34] resident and working father. I

[6:19:36] want to raise my family here

[6:19:37] and buy a single family home

[6:19:39] that I can call home. But for

[6:19:41] families like mine that's

[6:19:43] increasingly become a bit

[6:19:44] harder to afford. That's why I

[6:19:46] support missing mental housing

[6:19:48] things like townhomes,

[6:19:49] duplexes, starter homes. And

[6:19:51] while I understand that the

[6:19:52] change it's going to be

[6:19:53] difficult for a lot of the

[6:19:54] existing neighbors. I also

[6:19:57] believe that we can work

[6:19:57] together to add housing while

[6:19:59] respecting the character of the

[6:20:00] communities we want san jose to

[6:20:02] be a place where anyone could

[6:20:04] put down roots. And I hope that

[6:20:06] we can find a path that works

[6:20:07] for existing residents and all

[6:20:08] families trying to find a home.

[6:20:10] thank you. Thank you. Next

[6:20:12] speaker. >> good evening mayor

[6:20:20] and council members. My name is

[6:20:22] beth humana's. I grew up in

[6:20:26] santa clara county. My family

[6:20:27] and friends are still here and

[6:20:29] I recently moved back from

[6:20:32] central valley. I originally

[6:20:35] moved away because owning a

[6:20:36] home in san jose was out

[6:20:37] of reach. The commute was

[6:20:39] difficult but that time moving

[6:20:41] away felt like my only

[6:20:42] realistic option. That's why I

[6:20:45] support the general plan update

[6:20:47] and we're missing middle

[6:20:48] housing. Please give working

[6:20:51] people and first time buyers a

[6:20:53] path to homeownership. I hope

[6:20:56] san jose becomes a place where

[6:20:58] people who grew up and work

[6:21:00] here can afford a home without

[6:21:02] moving or having to live with

[6:21:04] their family or sharing an

[6:21:06] apartment. Thank you. >> thank

[6:21:10] you. Next >> speaker I have

[6:21:11] gary steve and louise luis

[6:21:14] kiana >> garcia. After these

[6:21:18] three names I'm going to call

[6:21:19] the online speakers so I just

[6:21:22] want the people who are on zoom

[6:21:24] to sort of wake up. Go ahead.

[6:21:28] >> hi, my name is bob

[6:21:30] valderrama. Thank you honorable

[6:21:31] mayor and council for having a

[6:21:33] public hearing on this. I love

[6:21:36] san jose. I grew up in district

[6:21:37] gate and been a homeowner in

[6:21:40] district nine for over 40

[6:21:41] years. Single family

[6:21:43] neighborhoods are not just part

[6:21:45] of the charm, the culture and

[6:21:46] the character of san jose. I

[6:21:48] would argue that these

[6:21:49] neighborhoods are san jose.

[6:21:52] okay. I urge you to oppose that

[6:21:56] this high density proposal and

[6:22:00] just to remind you that most

[6:22:01] of the people that voiced their

[6:22:03] opinion today did not move to

[6:22:05] austin or nashville or florida.

[6:22:08] they stayed here their

[6:22:09] faithful, their taxpayers

[6:22:12] property owners and just want

[6:22:14] to be one want to leave

[6:22:16] san jose san jose. Vote no

[6:22:17] thank you. >> thank you. Next

[6:22:19] speaker. Good afternoon.

[6:22:26] my name is chris auerbach and

[6:22:30] there's a good public policy.

[6:22:33] there's bad public policy and

[6:22:36] then there's public policy gone

[6:22:37] wild. This is public policy

[6:22:41] gone wild. This should have

[6:22:43] never been brought to the

[6:22:44] people. The thing about filling

[6:22:46] a middle is right now there's

[6:22:49] something in the middle.

[6:22:52] there's no hole. There's

[6:22:53] something there. If there was a

[6:22:55] hole, what you're talking about

[6:22:57] today probably makes >> some

[6:22:58] sense. But when there is no

[6:23:01] hole in the middle. And then

[6:23:03] the other expression that uses

[6:23:05] up zoning these are cutesy

[6:23:08] terms. But what we're really

[6:23:10] doing is saying density and

[6:23:13] what's density? That's where

[6:23:16] you build probably up right?

[6:23:19] and you have to have services

[6:23:20] and stuff. But the real issue

[6:23:22] here with housing and stuff

[6:23:24] like that is the price

[6:23:26] of housing. >> that's your

[6:23:28] time. The next speaker we're

[6:23:40] losing the >> housing battle in

[6:23:42] san jose. We are way behind >>

[6:23:45] the scenes of this housing

[6:23:46] crisis were sown over 50 years

[6:23:49] ago when san jose became a city

[6:23:51] of mostly single family homes

[6:23:53] reliant on driving. We >> went

[6:23:55] too far in one direction. Now

[6:23:57] we need a rebalancing >> so

[6:23:59] everyone can afford to live

[6:24:00] here. The only moral way we do

[6:24:03] this is denser neighborhoods.

[6:24:06] the only >> fair way to do it

[6:24:08] is along racial and class lines

[6:24:10] is multistory housing

[6:24:11] throughout san jose. And the

[6:24:14] best way to do that emphasize

[6:24:15] walking, biking and public

[6:24:16] transit without parking

[6:24:19] mandates. I love neighborhood

[6:24:21] commercial at the >> end

[6:24:22] of blocks in the command to

[6:24:23] videos memo. That's a wonderful

[6:24:26] idea and I hope it's something

[6:24:28] we can pursue. Thank you for

[6:24:30] staff for your work on this

[6:24:32] issue. Thanks council for your

[6:24:34] consideration. Thank you. Next

[6:24:36] speaker. >> by the wages where

[6:24:42] is that high speed rail? You

[6:24:46] know the it's got to be said.

[6:24:48] the state legislature in

[6:24:49] sacramento is out of control.

[6:24:52] it's got to be said it's out

[6:24:53] of control. So why have a

[6:24:56] planning department? If we're

[6:24:57] taking zoning orders from

[6:25:00] sacramento. So this proposal >>

[6:25:04] is crazy. Don't accept it.

[6:25:06] don't approve it. Throw it out.

[6:25:09] throw it out with the garbage,

[6:25:11] not the recycling stuff. So it

[6:25:12] comes back next year or the

[6:25:14] year after. You all need >> to

[6:25:18] go on garbage night and drive

[6:25:19] through your neighborhoods and

[6:25:21] other neighborhoods and see the

[6:25:23] trouble people have even

[6:25:25] fitting their garbage cans on

[6:25:27] the street. A lot of people

[6:25:29] can't even park in front

[6:25:31] of their own houses especially

[6:25:33] in a lot of the older areas.

[6:25:35] think about that. That's right.

[6:25:36] now that's not with 32 units on

[6:25:39] this side, 32 units on that

[6:25:41] side which is thank >> you that

[6:25:44] your time. Next speaker after

[6:25:47] this in-person speaker I'm

[6:25:48] going to call amy online

[6:25:50] followed by rene george, pam

[6:25:53] and cathy. So amy, rene george,

[6:25:55] pam and cathy, get ready.

[6:25:57] go ahead. >> hi, my name is

[6:25:59] lucien garcia and I grew up

[6:26:01] here in san jose in the east

[6:26:02] side. And as someone who

[6:26:04] commutes three hours every day

[6:26:06] to san francisco and still

[6:26:08] decide to live here, it's

[6:26:10] really disheartening to hear

[6:26:11] how many homeowners who I would

[6:26:13] one day would love to be don't

[6:26:15] want more housing >> to be

[6:26:16] built. I am commuting three

[6:26:18] hours a day to save up for what

[6:26:20] if there is no housing I will

[6:26:21] not be able to live here. Once

[6:26:23] I am able to afford a home. And

[6:26:25] as someone who grew up here

[6:26:26] it's very disheartening if

[6:26:27] there is >> no more housing

[6:26:28] built but responsibly along

[6:26:31] rapid transit which is what I

[6:26:32] do use a 66 bus and then the

[6:26:35] bart for an hour and 20 minutes

[6:26:37] one way. So please be

[6:26:40] responsible about how housing

[6:26:42] >> is built but it needs to be

[6:26:44] built or else people that love

[6:26:45] san jose will not get >> to

[6:26:47] live here. Thank you amy. >>

[6:26:55] good evening mayor and council

[6:26:56] members. My name is amy cody

[6:26:57] and I'm a resident of the

[6:26:58] moreland west neighborhood in

[6:27:00] district one. I support smart

[6:27:02] responsible growth across our

[6:27:04] city from our downtown to our

[6:27:06] neighborhoods. That said, I'm

[6:27:08] very concerned about the

[6:27:09] proposed general plan update

[6:27:11] and its unintended irreversible

[6:27:13] consequences on our residential

[6:27:15] neighborhoods. West san jose

[6:27:17] and other areas lack the robust

[6:27:18] transit infrastructure to

[6:27:20] support zero parking

[6:27:21] developments and our working

[6:27:23] families and seniors depend on

[6:27:25] their vehicles. A lack

[6:27:27] of street space already forces

[6:27:29] my neighbors in duplexes

[6:27:30] triplexes and other small

[6:27:32] multifamily properties to park

[6:27:34] in their yards across sidewalks

[6:27:36] or far away and to place

[6:27:38] garbage and recycling bins in

[6:27:40] bike lanes creating safety

[6:27:41] hazards. Please support the

[6:27:43] mayor's memo. At the least we

[6:27:45] need onsite parking

[6:27:46] requirements where possible and

[6:27:49] to ensure that total unit

[6:27:50] counts include ada use. And

[6:27:52] finally I agree with previous

[6:27:53] speakers that these major land

[6:27:56] use changes require more public

[6:27:58] outreach. >> renee. >> the

[6:28:04] missing middle proposal gives

[6:28:05] the middle finger to single

[6:28:06] family homeowners. Save our

[6:28:07] residential single family homes

[6:28:09] and residential neighborhoods

[6:28:10] and vote no on this proposal.

[6:28:12] this plan threatens single

[6:28:13] family homes because developers

[6:28:14] will buy and outbid potential

[6:28:16] homebuyers only to convert them

[6:28:18] to single family only to

[6:28:19] convert them to the most

[6:28:21] allowable number of units on

[6:28:23] that parcel. The planning

[6:28:25] commission should be working

[6:28:26] for city residents and not

[6:28:27] developers. If councilmembers

[6:28:29] have received political

[6:28:30] donations from developers they

[6:28:31] should let it be known before

[6:28:32] voting today. If councilmembers

[6:28:35] actually support this I'll take

[6:28:36] you on the ride along and show

[6:28:37] you what the future holds. I'll

[6:28:39] show you traffic cones, trash

[6:28:41] cans and furniture that people

[6:28:42] use daily to save their parking

[6:28:44] spots. It occurs in san jose.

[6:28:46] and this is going to start

[6:28:47] occurring everywhere else. If

[6:28:48] you vote yes, george followed

[6:28:53] by pam george. If you're on

[6:29:02] your phone it's star six to

[6:29:03] unmute. Okay moving on to pam

[6:29:11] followed by kathy. >> hello.

[6:29:20] can you hear me now? Yes. Yes.

[6:29:22] I am urging you to vote no

[6:29:24] along with almost all of the

[6:29:25] comments here today as well as

[6:29:26] the 12 packets of comments

[6:29:28] online. What is being proposed

[6:29:30] will fundamentally change the

[6:29:32] neighborhoods of san jose and

[6:29:34] there is only enriched

[6:29:35] developers while just

[6:29:36] increasing the overall quality

[6:29:37] of life. I support responsible

[6:29:40] housing development in san jose

[6:29:41] but san jose established

[6:29:45] neighborhoods are an important

[6:29:46] part of that and I have lived

[6:29:48] here for over 40 years and as a

[6:29:49] d9 resident who purchased a

[6:29:51] home in a single family

[6:29:52] neighborhood years ago to raise

[6:29:54] my children, I did so with the

[6:29:55] expectation about the

[6:29:56] surrounding land use framework.

[6:29:58] I'm particularly concerned

[6:30:00] about policies that would allow

[6:30:01] greater density on individual

[6:30:02] lots throughout single family

[6:30:03] neighbors without adequately

[6:30:05] considering the cumulative

[6:30:06] impact on neighborhood

[6:30:07] character traffic parking

[6:30:09] infrastructure, privacy trees

[6:30:11] and especially the scale

[6:30:12] of possible buildings in

[6:30:14] relation to existing homes.

[6:30:16] there's a big difference

[6:30:17] between allowing new forms

[6:30:18] of homes and changing the

[6:30:19] fundamental zoning

[6:30:21] expectations. Kathy >> followed

[6:30:24] by robert reese. Kathy at star

[6:30:33] six on mute if you're on your

[6:30:34] phone. I oppose this proposal.

[6:30:39] it would affect one want

[6:30:40] privacy would be impacted crime

[6:30:42] will increase the area will be

[6:30:45] noise zero that wants peace

[6:30:47] of mind and it will deteriorate

[6:30:49] the neighborhood. I agree that

[6:30:51] san jose needs more housing but

[6:30:53] please consider using empty

[6:30:56] tech or commercial buildings

[6:30:58] like whatsapp and cisco's doing

[6:31:00] for apartments. Okay robert

[6:31:07] followed by michael wing.

[6:31:14] hello, my name is >> robert

[6:31:16] reese. I live in evergreen. I

[6:31:17] support the memo by council

[6:31:19] members candela smoke and or

[6:31:21] keys. I'd like to remind the

[6:31:23] council that when you embarked

[6:31:25] on the update to the general

[6:31:27] plan a year and a half ago you

[6:31:29] explicitly along with staff

[6:31:31] said that the limitations would

[6:31:33] include excluding the high vmt

[6:31:35] areas. So it's sort of odd now

[6:31:38] a year and a half later to find

[6:31:39] out that there's a problem with

[6:31:41] excluding the vmt areas

[6:31:43] evergreen hazardous portion

[6:31:45] amount of pd zone lands and

[6:31:48] area plants like the evergreen

[6:31:49] village square. So essentially

[6:31:51] what we're talking about doing

[6:31:53] is re subdividing existing

[6:31:55] pods. My particular

[6:31:56] circumstances I live in a

[6:31:59] neighborhood with high fire

[6:32:00] risk skinny streets no

[6:32:01] sidewalks, limited ingress and

[6:32:03] egress. I'm already on a small

[6:32:05] lot. I also find it strange

[6:32:08] that the oecd would be saying

[6:32:10] that the 16 unit breakers is

[6:32:12] inadequate when they're

[6:32:12] allowing the west side cities

[6:32:15] to not. >> thank you michael

[6:32:18] wang followed by pierluigi.

[6:32:22] hello >> my name's michael

[6:32:24] wang. News flash. Our

[6:32:27] neighborhoods are already being

[6:32:28] destroyed and now by housing

[6:32:32] prices are rising prices are

[6:32:34] also the product of years

[6:32:36] of careful planning. The phrase

[6:32:38] the purpose of a system is what

[6:32:40] it does comes to mind. As a

[6:32:42] recent college graduate I still

[6:32:43] live with my parents. Our

[6:32:45] schools are closing now.

[6:32:47] housing costs are through the

[6:32:48] roof. This is sound like a

[6:32:50] system we want to keep or when

[6:32:53] we want to change. To everyone

[6:32:56] saying this >> won't activate

[6:32:57] builders already the amount

[6:32:59] of units built by the city are

[6:33:01] assessed in way through the

[6:33:03] housing >> cycle. This will

[6:33:04] help make up enough buffer to

[6:33:08] make sure >> that we don't

[6:33:09] activate it. Thank you. >>

[6:33:13] thank you pierluigi. Followed

[6:33:15] by blair. Npr recently reported

[6:33:21] no city >> is making the

[6:33:23] housing numbers in the state

[6:33:25] of california albeit >> for a

[6:33:27] few small rural areas. Next

[6:33:29] year california will have a new

[6:33:30] governor not running for

[6:33:31] present. And a new cd cd.

[6:33:34] director h.c. The numbers are

[6:33:37] ridiculous and unattainable.

[6:33:39] the state auditor's report

[6:33:40] of cd showed a lack of review

[6:33:41] matrices and sloppy data

[6:33:43] processes regarding suggestive

[6:33:45] versus mandatory language in

[6:33:47] their findings. A discretionary

[6:33:49] decision tonight regarding

[6:33:51] single family neighborhoods

[6:33:52] would lose the trust of san

[6:33:54] jose residents. Please drop

[6:33:56] this and stay with the current

[6:33:57] general plan that already

[6:33:58] accommodates hundreds

[6:34:00] of thousands increase in

[6:34:01] population and allows the

[6:34:03] countless new state laws to

[6:34:04] take their course which are

[6:34:06] excessive and whose impact will

[6:34:08] be massive. Thank you to all

[6:34:09] the sounds of residents who

[6:34:10] came to their first city

[6:34:11] council meeting tonight.

[6:34:12] speaking without lobbyists

[6:34:14] public hearings or a best

[6:34:15] practice in the usa. Don't

[6:34:17] experiment. Instead put it on

[6:34:18] the ballot. >> thank you,

[6:34:21] blair. Followed by marie glee.

[6:34:26] hi, I'm blair beekman. Living

[6:34:28] in san diego, the past four

[6:34:29] years they've done some really

[6:34:31] great work with >> past pap is

[6:34:34] finding homes for low income

[6:34:36] people. It's been a real

[6:34:37] success story that I know path

[6:34:39] works in san jose that I hope

[6:34:42] we can be talking about how to

[6:34:43] be housing low income people.

[6:34:45] I've been talking for years

[6:34:47] about mixed income ideas that

[6:34:49] don't necessarily have to work

[6:34:51] with >> you know, multifamily

[6:34:53] housing and missing middle

[6:34:57] things. It can work for single

[6:34:58] family homes as well in

[6:35:00] neighborhoods >> sharing

[6:35:02] community wealth and income in

[6:35:04] neighborhoods I think is an

[6:35:05] important goal that we have to

[6:35:07] be better learning. And that

[6:35:08] was mentioned by one of the

[6:35:09] first public speakers today.

[6:35:10] thank you for that. Good luck

[6:35:13] in addressing such issues. And

[6:35:15] good luck in working on tech

[6:35:16] accountability for our future

[6:35:18] neighborhood public safety as

[6:35:19] well. Thank you. >> thank you,

[6:35:22] maria. Glee followed by roland.

[6:35:26] >> hi, my name is mira and I

[6:35:31] just recently bought a home in

[6:35:32] district three and prior to

[6:35:34] this had been renting and

[6:35:35] willow glen. This was my first

[6:35:37] home purchase and >> it cost

[6:35:39] me an arm and a leg but was

[6:35:41] worth it because I love this

[6:35:43] city and when I actually save

[6:35:45] up enough I may even be able to

[6:35:47] start a family here. Please do

[6:35:49] not >> sacrifice city

[6:35:50] affordability and the future

[6:35:52] of the youth for parking. I do

[6:35:56] not want it to be this hard >>

[6:35:57] to afford living in san jose. I

[6:35:59] worry about the affordability

[6:36:00] of the city for current and

[6:36:01] future generations. The best

[6:36:03] way to reduce the costs of rent

[6:36:05] and living is building more

[6:36:06] housing stock and I would

[6:36:07] support this even if it would

[6:36:08] mean developing a high rise

[6:36:10] right next to me. I want

[6:36:12] my family to live in a vibrant

[6:36:13] community of residents both old

[6:36:15] and new that can afford to live

[6:36:18] in san jose. Please vote yes.

[6:36:21] thank you. Thank you, roland

[6:36:24] followed by dana murphy. >> and

[6:36:29] good evening. My name is roland

[6:36:30] o'brien. My family and I have

[6:36:33] lived near the santa teresa

[6:36:34] library station for over 40

[6:36:36] years. Please support the view

[6:36:39] request to rezone these 32

[6:36:41] acres back to the original

[6:36:43] mixed use housing zoning which

[6:36:45] has moved to the other side

[6:36:46] of the for you of highway 87 to

[6:36:49] increase the value of blue

[6:36:51] wolves. I stop also by $100

[6:36:53] million to finance those great

[6:36:56] stadia near the airport. Next I

[6:36:59] am strongly opposed to the

[6:37:00] demolition of two schools and

[6:37:02] one church. The other view

[6:37:04] light rail to make room for

[6:37:06] affordable housing. The soon to

[6:37:08] be 79. And finally last but not

[6:37:11] least I hope you value us all

[6:37:13] for 80,000. I repeat 80,000

[6:37:17] homes 30 years ago. Please

[6:37:19] consider rezoning sections

[6:37:20] of coyote valley for mixed use

[6:37:22] open space. Thank you >> dana

[6:37:27] followed by dan cortez. >> hi,

[6:37:31] my name is dana. I live in

[6:37:32] district three and recently

[6:37:34] bought my first home in bonita

[6:37:35] park. I want to live in a city

[6:37:37] that is vibrant and affordable

[6:37:39] and that comes from plans like

[6:37:41] approving to increase density.

[6:37:43] please build next to me. Please

[6:37:44] build around me please build up

[6:37:46] around the city it cost me >>

[6:37:49] about everything to afford a

[6:37:51] home here >> and but I love

[6:37:53] living in san jose. Please vote

[6:37:57] yes on the missing middle

[6:37:58] housing plan to raise the

[6:37:59] minimum to at least 32 dwelling

[6:38:01] units per acre. Thank you very

[6:38:03] much. Thank you dan followed by

[6:38:05] delma. Good evening. Born and

[6:38:11] raised here in san jose. I'm a

[6:38:12] 47 year resident of p6. We

[6:38:15] raised a good family here,

[6:38:16] bought a nice home here. I am

[6:38:18] here this evening to express

[6:38:20] my strong opposition to this

[6:38:21] high density proposal in our

[6:38:23] neighborhoods. While I

[6:38:24] understand the need for

[6:38:25] affordable housing in our city,

[6:38:27] there is no such thing as

[6:38:28] affordable housing in silicon

[6:38:29] valley. It is a misnomer. I

[6:38:32] believe that these projects

[6:38:33] would have a detrimental impact

[6:38:35] on our community. This is not

[6:38:37] what I envisioned when I

[6:38:38] purchased our homes here.

[6:38:40] furthermore, the type

[6:38:41] of housing development that's

[6:38:44] being proposed is simply not

[6:38:45] the neighborhood's. Please. We

[6:38:48] think this. I urge you to

[6:38:50] reconsider this proposal. I

[6:38:51] believe that this proposal is

[6:38:52] simply not the right fit for

[6:38:53] our neighborhood. Your

[6:38:55] neighborhood? This is not a

[6:38:56] well thought out plan. This is

[6:38:58] a blurred vision. I implore you

[6:39:00] to vote no. Thank you. >> thank

[6:39:04] you. Delma followed by mansour.

[6:39:08] >> hi. Good evening. This is

[6:39:12] thelma. I. I lived in district

[6:39:16] five for 27 years. I support

[6:39:18] allowing muslim missing middle

[6:39:20] class. My goodness. Missing

[6:39:23] middle housing in all

[6:39:24] residential neighborhoods with

[6:39:26] densities of up to 32 units per

[6:39:29] acre. We urgently need more

[6:39:31] affordable homes. We should we

[6:39:34] should make better use of the

[6:39:36] infrastructure we already have.

[6:39:38] I also support making it easier

[6:39:40] for school districts and faith

[6:39:41] communities to build affordable

[6:39:44] housing on our land and oppose

[6:39:46] adding new parking requirements

[6:39:49] that make housing harder to

[6:39:50] build. At the same time, I also

[6:39:53] urge the council to take

[6:39:53] careful approach to the growth

[6:39:55] of aa data centers and consider

[6:39:57] their impacts on water,

[6:39:59] electricity, infrastructure,

[6:40:00] air quality, greenhouse gas

[6:40:02] emissions. We use strong

[6:40:04] enforceable standards and

[6:40:06] meaningful community input

[6:40:09] before allowing this growth to

[6:40:10] continue unchecked. Thank you

[6:40:14] mansoor followed by bedwell.

[6:40:20] mansoor nasser. >> yeah. Higher

[6:40:24] density doesn't result in

[6:40:27] reduced prices. Look at london,

[6:40:29] new york. Singapore, chicago.

[6:40:32] rome. Madrid. Hong kong. To

[6:40:35] name a few. The environmental

[6:40:38] analysis and final

[6:40:40] recommendations won't be

[6:40:41] available until december 2027.

[6:40:45] while I approve the framework

[6:40:46] now and study the consequences

[6:40:50] later. Please do not ruin a

[6:40:53] great city and call it

[6:40:55] progress. Thank you. >> thank

[6:40:58] you. Manuel followed by j.r..

[6:41:03] >> hi. Good evening, mayor and

[6:41:07] council. And there's been no

[6:41:08] set aside. I'm promising

[6:41:09] at home I live in district four

[6:41:11] and I just want to call in to

[6:41:12] support increasing residential

[6:41:14] neighborhood densities to 30

[6:41:15] minutes per acre to support the

[6:41:17] development of missing middle

[6:41:18] housing from the charges and

[6:41:20] committee memo. You know we

[6:41:21] support increasing height

[6:41:22] limits for middle houses

[6:41:23] surrounding transit areas. And

[6:41:25] then from the mayor's brown act

[6:41:26] memo we support recommendations

[6:41:27] where the need to pick up

[6:41:28] lands. Also we oppose adding

[6:41:31] new parking requires two

[6:41:32] elements I think there's enough

[6:41:34] parking to go around and in

[6:41:35] certain districts seems to be

[6:41:36] over part but there's means

[6:41:38] of developing that that still

[6:41:40] allow for the development

[6:41:42] of high density housing in

[6:41:43] certain regions of the city. So

[6:41:45] that said, thank you for your

[6:41:47] time and good luck with

[6:41:49] everyone else's comments. >>

[6:41:51] thank you, j.r. Followed by

[6:41:53] teresa doerr. >> and evening

[6:41:59] council I'm speaking in support

[6:42:00] of council members command

[6:42:01] tordillos memo hold the line on

[6:42:04] no parking minimums don't undo

[6:42:06] what the city already

[6:42:07] got right. No more winchester

[6:42:09] style carve outs for whoever

[6:42:11] shows up and is the loudest

[6:42:12] voice. I love the idea

[6:42:14] of corner shops and bodegas.

[6:42:16] let's be clear about why I'm

[6:42:17] able to call in tonight.

[6:42:19] san jose didn't restore remote

[6:42:21] public comment out of goodwill

[6:42:22] state law forced the city's

[6:42:24] hand through sb 707 to bring

[6:42:26] equity back to public

[6:42:27] participation for years this

[6:42:29] chamber has been dominated by

[6:42:31] wealthy homeowners as we're

[6:42:32] seeing tonight from districts

[6:42:34] six, nine and ten with the

[6:42:37] luxury of child care flexible

[6:42:39] jobs and hours to sit here on a

[6:42:41] weekday. It isn't civic virtue

[6:42:43] it's privilege. Meanwhile, the

[6:42:45] renters and working families

[6:42:46] hit hardest by this housing

[6:42:48] crisis are stuck in work,

[6:42:50] at work in traffic or taking

[6:42:52] care of their kids as the

[6:42:54] campaign toward deals memo and

[6:42:56] prioritizes housing over

[6:42:57] parking thank you. >> thank you

[6:43:01] teresa doerr followed by toni

[6:43:10] there will be going to city

[6:43:13] council members I am a

[6:43:26] teresa I'm going to remove your

[6:43:29] person to speak go ahead and

[6:43:30] put your hand back up once you

[6:43:31] get your audio fixed toni

[6:43:34] followed by nathaniel mayor and

[6:43:42] council movement for council I

[6:43:47] beg you beg you to please vote

[6:43:50] no on this. I have been in

[6:43:53] my home for 47 years in

[6:43:55] district nine. I pray every

[6:43:59] time a house is sold on

[6:44:00] my block that they don't put a

[6:44:02] big gigantic thing and to have

[6:44:04] 32 units next to me would just

[6:44:07] totally I would leave and

[6:44:09] that's what I think is going to

[6:44:10] happen is you're going to have

[6:44:11] more and more people leave this

[6:44:14] that have worked hard and been

[6:44:15] in their homes for a long time.

[6:44:17] there are places there are

[6:44:18] buildings that are out there

[6:44:19] that have nothing in the use

[6:44:21] those for your high density I,

[6:44:23] I totally totally believe that

[6:44:26] we need to have affordable

[6:44:27] housing but I don't think it's

[6:44:28] going to happen even if you do

[6:44:30] do the high density because

[6:44:32] it's become ridiculous as with

[6:44:33] the tech companies and the

[6:44:35] wages that people are making

[6:44:36] here so please please vote no

[6:44:41] thank you nathaniel followed by

[6:44:42] sandy. >> good evening. My name

[6:44:47] is nathaniel and I've lived in

[6:44:50] santa clara county for most

[6:44:51] of my life and I'm here in

[6:44:53] support of the missing middle

[6:44:55] housing proposal. And I just

[6:44:57] wanted to mention that I feel

[6:44:58] like the a lot of this public

[6:45:00] comment has come from like an

[6:45:02] echo chamber of existing

[6:45:03] homeowners. These are these are

[6:45:06] people who have a home and who

[6:45:07] are worried about how this is

[6:45:08] going to affect their

[6:45:09] neighborhood. And that's

[6:45:11] understandable. But I also

[6:45:14] wanted to mention that I feel

[6:45:15] that right now there are

[6:45:16] thousands of working families

[6:45:18] in the city who are severely

[6:45:19] burdened by housing costs

[6:45:21] paying half their income in

[6:45:22] rent, doubling up with

[6:45:23] relatives or leaving that

[6:45:24] region entirely and then and

[6:45:28] missing middle housing is like

[6:45:29] one step in the right

[6:45:30] direction. So I just I'm asking

[6:45:32] for you guys to please vote yes

[6:45:33] on it. Thank you. >> thank you,

[6:45:38] sandy followed by gorman

[6:45:51] . Good >> evening mayor and

[6:45:52] council members. I request that

[6:45:55] you reject this city missing

[6:45:57] middle proposal. Why? It just

[6:46:00] makes absolute lutely no sense

[6:46:02] at all. No parking space

[6:46:04] minimums by right development

[6:46:06] up to 32 homes on a current

[6:46:08] single family lot and the list

[6:46:11] goes on and on and on. I don't

[6:46:14] think anyone is objecting to

[6:46:16] more housing but what we are

[6:46:18] objecting to is the increase

[6:46:20] density and the density in

[6:46:23] existing single family

[6:46:25] neighborhoods. I asked that

[6:46:27] before a vote is taken this

[6:46:29] evening by council you do two

[6:46:31] things and share that

[6:46:33] information with the auditorium

[6:46:36] and those online a tally for

[6:46:39] the for and against written

[6:46:41] comments. And I sure hope you

[6:46:43] read them and a tally for the

[6:46:46] for and against verbal

[6:46:47] testimonies tonight think about

[6:46:51] those numbers and the con >>

[6:46:53] thank you gorman followed by

[6:46:55] kenneth. >> >> hello city

[6:47:00] council I want you to remember

[6:47:03] you're on video we can see you

[6:47:05] on your phones because you've

[6:47:07] probably lost interest of all

[6:47:09] these people giving their

[6:47:11] opinions. I've also been here

[6:47:14] since 130 and I'm very

[6:47:16] passionate about rejecting

[6:47:18] this. All of this as the

[6:47:20] members of our city. This is

[6:47:22] not a state requirement. This

[6:47:25] is you this city who want to

[6:47:27] take away the homes that we

[6:47:30] paid for that we've worked for.

[6:47:33] and if you if you listen >> to

[6:47:35] the vast majority of the people

[6:47:37] that are against it are

[6:47:39] developers and real estate

[6:47:41] agents because they're going to

[6:47:42] be making millions off of the

[6:47:45] backs of the people that made

[6:47:47] san jose a desirable

[6:47:49] neighborhood to live in. Okay.

[6:47:54] thank you kenneth followed by

[6:47:56] george kenneth kay >> I'm going

[6:48:09] to move on. George followed by

[6:48:10] jake after >> jake will be

[6:48:16] sarina to george okay. Jake

[6:48:25] followed by serena and after

[6:48:27] serena we're back to teresa.

[6:48:31] I'm here. When I heard about

[6:48:32] this up zoning, I thought it

[6:48:34] was honestly some trump

[6:48:36] corrupts real estate developer

[6:48:38] written proposal not our local

[6:48:40] city council on development

[6:48:42] planning board. I mean I hear

[6:48:45] people say they want lower

[6:48:46] housing, more affordability. I

[6:48:48] totally understand that but

[6:48:49] that's not what this is going

[6:48:50] to do. When you go to buy a

[6:48:52] house you're a first time

[6:48:53] buyer. It's going to get bought

[6:48:54] by a real estate developer.

[6:48:55] they're going to outbid you

[6:48:56] because they have more money

[6:48:57] than you and then they're going

[6:48:59] to take it and they're going to

[6:48:59] build a bunch of houses on it.

[6:49:01] they're going to sell it for

[6:49:01] millions of dollars. They're

[6:49:02] not buying them to lose money.

[6:49:04] they're buying them to make

[6:49:05] money. We're also one of the

[6:49:06] places that it's the most

[6:49:07] expensive to build as well.

[6:49:09] that's why home prices are

[6:49:10] super high as they are right

[6:49:12] now. So I definitely urge you

[6:49:14] guys as somebody that's in real

[6:49:15] estate to vote no it's going to

[6:49:16] hurt the city, not help it's

[6:49:18] going to kill our

[6:49:19] neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank

[6:49:21] >> you, serena followed by

[6:49:24] theresa doe hello. My name is

[6:49:29] serena wu and I recently bought

[6:49:30] a duplex with friends in

[6:49:32] district three. I support

[6:49:33] increasing housing density in

[6:49:35] san jose to at least 32

[6:49:36] dwelling units per acre because

[6:49:37] it's clear to me from

[6:49:38] my experience in the current

[6:49:39] housing market how difficult it

[6:49:41] is to find affordable housing

[6:49:42] in san jose and our need for

[6:49:44] additional housing to meet our

[6:49:46] housing goals has been an issue

[6:49:47] for years already housing

[6:49:48] density does not increase

[6:49:50] overnight after rezoning

[6:49:51] according to the city's general

[6:49:53] four year plan, the city needs

[6:49:54] 55 dwelling units per acre to

[6:49:56] break even in terms

[6:49:57] of providing the services the

[6:49:59] people living there get. So an

[6:50:00] increase to 32 dwelling units

[6:50:02] per acre is only part of what

[6:50:03] we need. I do not want a

[6:50:05] crumbling san jose 30 years

[6:50:06] from now. We need action now to

[6:50:08] build towards a future that

[6:50:09] supports the generations to

[6:50:11] come. We need to vote yes on

[6:50:12] little missing and missing

[6:50:14] middle housing. Thank you.

[6:50:16] thank you >> theresa. Theresa,

[6:50:26] there is something you're not

[6:50:27] you're microphone isn't showing

[6:50:29] up at all so I think you are

[6:50:31] still having audio problems.

[6:50:33] caller 5140 please press star

[6:50:35] six to unmute. Okay go ahead.

[6:50:46] we can hear you. >> oh thank

[6:50:48] you. Oh thank you. Great. Yeah

[6:50:50] I think you guys need to reject

[6:50:51] this. It's not going to work if

[6:50:54] you don't have enough laborers

[6:50:56] that you to do the work. The

[6:50:58] building materials are super

[6:50:59] expensive and I want anyone to

[6:51:02] raise their hand there

[6:51:03] including the city council. If

[6:51:04] they took mass transit to even

[6:51:05] get there today where they have

[6:51:07] a great public transportation

[6:51:09] connect they don't have. So

[6:51:12] it's very important to not ruin

[6:51:14] the neighborhood people who

[6:51:16] have lived there for for a

[6:51:17] while of what >> it's the same

[6:51:22] person who is in person. Thank

[6:51:23] you. Yeah. You can't go home

[6:51:26] and raise your hand again, john

[6:51:29] followed by george >> and john

[6:51:45] kate george followed by

[6:51:46] kenneth. Can you hear me okay?

[6:52:00] you >> I took your permission

[6:52:02] away because you're having a

[6:52:04] really, really big feedback on

[6:52:06] your microphone so try to fix

[6:52:09] your audio. We're going to

[6:52:10] go to kenneth followed by pm.

[6:52:13] >> good evening. Can you hear

[6:52:17] me? Yes, yes. Hi, I'm kenneth.

[6:52:20] kenneth, have you ever saw

[6:52:21] this? I live in district three.

[6:52:23] I support >> enabling the

[6:52:24] development of missing middle

[6:52:25] housing in all residential

[6:52:27] neighborhoods >> by increasing

[6:52:28] density to 32 units per acre.

[6:52:31] this will help create much

[6:52:33] needed more affordable homes in

[6:52:35] san jose make smart strategic

[6:52:36] use of our existing

[6:52:38] infrastructure and reduce

[6:52:39] greenhouse gas emissions by

[6:52:41] letting people live closer to

[6:52:42] where they live work I

[6:52:44] encourage the council to take

[6:52:45] this necessary step in keeping

[6:52:47] with the city's housing element

[6:52:48] commitment. I support removing

[6:52:50] barriers including general plan

[6:52:52] amendments for school districts

[6:52:54] and faith communities that are

[6:52:55] zoned pcp to build affordable

[6:52:57] housing and other communities

[6:52:59] serving uses on their land. I

[6:53:01] oppose adding new parking

[6:53:03] requirements or limiting the

[6:53:04] parts of a city where middle

[6:53:07] housing could be built. We need

[6:53:09] it in every neighborhood. Thank

[6:53:11] you so much. I yield my time.

[6:53:15] thank you. P m followed by

[6:53:19] chris hi. Thank you for

[6:53:22] allowing me to address the

[6:53:23] council. I was actually there

[6:53:25] in person for several hours

[6:53:26] today. However I have young

[6:53:28] children and had to go and get

[6:53:30] them to not take mass transit

[6:53:33] because that would have been

[6:53:33] impossible to pick them up that

[6:53:35] school and get where they need

[6:53:36] to be and soccer and I'm

[6:53:38] sitting out here in the car

[6:53:39] waiting for my daughter to end

[6:53:40] her dance class so in general

[6:53:44] there's a big difference

[6:53:44] between allowing more housing

[6:53:47] and changing the underlying

[6:53:48] zoning expectations and I don't

[6:53:50] know if any of you have driven

[6:53:51] down bascom but all the new

[6:53:52] apartments here and there's a

[6:53:53] lot of vailable you know,

[6:53:55] studios are starting at over

[6:53:56] $3,000 so I'm really not sure

[6:53:58] what's being proposed is going

[6:54:00] to make things affordable. It's

[6:54:02] just going to add new problems

[6:54:04] and I think not solve what

[6:54:06] we're ultimately trying to get

[6:54:07] to here. So please I fear that

[6:54:09] there's no going back if this

[6:54:11] passes and I would like to see

[6:54:12] a no vote. I yield my time.

[6:54:15] thank you. Chris followed by

[6:54:19] john I >> just like to speak in

[6:54:23] favor of the missing as missing

[6:54:26] middle proposal and ask the

[6:54:28] council to vote yes. There are

[6:54:30] a lot of other comments I just

[6:54:31] want to I'm not a developer.

[6:54:32] I'm a resident and I think a

[6:54:35] lot of the comments sort

[6:54:36] of like to highlight that

[6:54:38] provides a lot of goes a long

[6:54:40] ways to providing more housing

[6:54:42] which is sorely needed and and

[6:54:46] basically I think more housing

[6:54:47] supply will help bring down the

[6:54:48] the cost of housing and make

[6:54:49] more housing available. There's

[6:54:52] a meter across island saying

[6:54:53] thank you >> thank >> you john

[6:54:57] followed by teresa after teresa

[6:54:59] I'm going to close now regina

[6:55:01] just put her hand up after

[6:55:02] regina. I'm going to close

[6:55:04] online comments. I'm going to

[6:55:06] call the last couple of names

[6:55:07] of in-person okay, john,

[6:55:11] go ahead. >> hi, this is john

[6:55:14] hessler. I'm the vice present

[6:55:15] of the center teresa foothills

[6:55:16] neighborhood association. We

[6:55:18] represent over 4200 homes in

[6:55:21] the south san jose area and our

[6:55:23] board of directors is

[6:55:24] unanimously and strongly

[6:55:26] opposed to the missing middle

[6:55:28] proposal. We note that the

[6:55:31] missing middle proposal

[6:55:32] directly violates and

[6:55:34] undermines a key principle

[6:55:36] of the existing san jose

[6:55:37] general plan known as major

[6:55:40] strategy number three which

[6:55:43] talks about keeping growth in

[6:55:46] identified growth areas and

[6:55:47] strictly limiting new

[6:55:49] residential development through

[6:55:51] neighborhood infill outside

[6:55:52] of those growth areas to quote

[6:55:54] preserve and enhance the

[6:55:56] quality of established

[6:55:58] neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank

[6:56:02] you, teresa. Let's try one more

[6:56:03] time and followed by regina can

[6:56:08] you hear me? Yes. Good evening

[6:56:10] . May or may han and >> council

[6:56:11] members I'm a resident

[6:56:13] of district six. I'm speaking

[6:56:14] on behalf of over 1000 members

[6:56:16] of san jose yimby we appreciate

[6:56:17] the work you're doing to guide

[6:56:18] san jose's future and we're

[6:56:19] supportive of the direction

[6:56:20] staff has taken. However, we're

[6:56:22] concerned that reducing plan

[6:56:23] density and reinstating parking

[6:56:25] minimums in key neighborhoods

[6:56:26] will limit the city's ability

[6:56:27] to respond effectively to our

[6:56:29] housing crisis. These areas

[6:56:30] were selected because they have

[6:56:32] strong infrastructure, good

[6:56:34] transit access and existing

[6:56:35] parking capacity, adding new

[6:56:37] parking requirements or slowing

[6:56:38] density makes housing more

[6:56:39] expensive to build and reduces

[6:56:41] the home number of homes we can

[6:56:42] create where they make the most

[6:56:44] sense if we miss these

[6:56:45] opportunities. San jose loses

[6:56:47] critical housing capacity this

[6:56:48] affects people who keep our

[6:56:50] city running firefighters,

[6:56:51] teachers, nurses and other

[6:56:53] essential workers who already

[6:56:54] face long commutes. It affects

[6:56:55] families trying to stay near

[6:56:57] loved ones seniors on fixed

[6:56:59] incomes who risked displacement

[6:57:01] and the next generation of tech

[6:57:02] workers who may choose other

[6:57:03] regions if they cannot afford

[6:57:04] to live here. San jose must

[6:57:06] build the housing needed for

[6:57:07] both today and tomorrow

[6:57:08] policies that key thank >> you

[6:57:10] regina. After regina it will be

[6:57:12] debbie, debra and ted in

[6:57:14] person. So debbie, debbie and

[6:57:17] ted you can make your way down.

[6:57:19] regina go ahead. Good evening.

[6:57:23] my name is regina celeste in

[6:57:24] williams and I'm the executive

[6:57:25] director of sba at home and a

[6:57:28] district three resident. I'm

[6:57:30] really excited about the staff

[6:57:32] recommendations because we are

[6:57:33] sba at home support increasing

[6:57:35] residential neighborhood

[6:57:36] densities to 32 units per acre.

[6:57:40] we want to support the

[6:57:42] development of more housing

[6:57:43] especially neighborhood scale

[6:57:45] housing which can create much

[6:57:47] needed affordable homes in

[6:57:49] san jose and we encourage

[6:57:51] council to really support

[6:57:54] building more housing in this

[6:57:56] city where people are looking

[6:57:58] for more affordability from the

[6:58:00] tordillos and campaign memo we

[6:58:03] support increased height limits

[6:58:05] for middle housing surrounding

[6:58:07] transit areas and from the

[6:58:09] mayor's brownback memo we

[6:58:11] support the recommendations

[6:58:12] related to pickup. We're very

[6:58:14] excited about those

[6:58:15] recommendations and we oppose

[6:58:18] adding new parking requirement

[6:58:20] to developments. Thank you.

[6:58:23] thank you. Next speaker. >>

[6:58:29] good evening mayor and council

[6:58:31] members. And it's been a long

[6:58:32] day. As a neighbor resident

[6:58:35] curry neighborhood resident who

[6:58:36] championed against the 17 story

[6:58:38] proposal at 826 north

[6:58:41] winchester, it's gratifying to

[6:58:43] see the turnout today from more

[6:58:45] san jose residents who love

[6:58:47] this city and want to see a

[6:58:48] thoughtful housing plan. I

[6:58:50] strongly support the mixed use

[6:58:52] neighborhood designation for

[6:58:54] the winchester boulevard

[6:58:55] corridor that is included in

[6:58:57] the recommendation from council

[6:58:58] members mulcahy, kendell and

[6:59:01] ortiz. It's sensible, it's

[6:59:03] reasonable and smart. It's a

[6:59:05] realistic compromise. But I

[6:59:08] have an important task and we

[6:59:09] must address transportation

[6:59:11] traffic and infrastructure bill

[6:59:13] before we move forward with a

[6:59:15] comprehensive housing plan. I

[6:59:17] know you're under pressure from

[6:59:18] the state but I know we can do

[6:59:20] better. Thank you. Thank you.

[6:59:22] next speaker I'd also like to

[6:59:23] now announce that every single

[6:59:25] card has been called from

[6:59:27] inside and out. If you put in a

[6:59:31] card and did not hear your

[6:59:32] name, this is the time to line

[6:59:34] up. Go ahead. Thank you, mayor

[6:59:41] . And the council members I'm

[6:59:44] debbie kerzner and I have lived

[6:59:46] in san jose for 47 years in the

[6:59:49] cary neighborhood. Our city is

[6:59:52] a vibrant has a vibrant

[6:59:54] downtown. It has vibrant

[6:59:56] neighborhoods. They are

[6:59:59] beautiful and they are the life

[7:00:02] of san jose. Please do not make

[7:00:04] our neighborhoods high density

[7:00:06] parking lots on all of our

[7:00:08] neighborhood streets. The new

[7:00:11] apartments built recently in

[7:00:13] our area of south winchester

[7:00:15] and bascom are not affordable.

[7:00:18] you want to increase density

[7:00:21] but we already have traffic

[7:00:23] problems and terrible

[7:00:25] congestion. And that has not

[7:00:27] been addressed. And we need the

[7:00:30] public transit to be adequate.

[7:00:33] please work to use the

[7:00:35] unoccupied tech buildings and

[7:00:37] apartments in the city to

[7:00:39] increase the density. I >>

[7:00:42] thank you that your time next

[7:00:43] speaker. Mayor city council.

[7:00:52] good evening. Life, liberty.

[7:00:56] the >> pursuit of happiness.

[7:00:57] that's what's going out the

[7:00:59] door here. That's in the

[7:01:01] declaration of independence

[7:01:02] thomas written by thomas

[7:01:03] jefferson. >> I think we've had

[7:01:08] some paid speakers here tonight

[7:01:10] that were >> supportive of this

[7:01:14] >> and this area has not been

[7:01:21] >> affordable for more than 40

[7:01:23] years. Also I think it's a

[7:01:26] disgrace for what I'll call

[7:01:28] newbies to criticize people who

[7:01:32] have lived here for 5060 years

[7:01:36] and they don't know the

[7:01:38] struggles that those people

[7:01:40] including myself went through

[7:01:43] to even get our homes 40 years

[7:01:45] ago. I'm out of time. Thank

[7:01:47] you. >> thank you. Next speaker

[7:01:55] I support the >> memo from

[7:01:57] council members mulcahy

[7:01:58] candidates and ortiz rezoning

[7:02:01] the winchester corridor as

[7:02:03] outlined in their memo is

[7:02:04] reasonable whereas the staff

[7:02:06] recommendations were not. The

[7:02:08] staff recommendations

[7:02:09] contradict san jose's goal

[7:02:11] of preserving the business tax

[7:02:13] base. Why weren't businesses in

[7:02:15] the affected zone consulted by

[7:02:16] the city during the staff

[7:02:17] recommendation process

[7:02:19] regarding a26 winter storm? The

[7:02:22] planning commissioner who

[7:02:23] stated he visited the

[7:02:24] neighborhood explained how that

[7:02:26] exploration caused him to

[7:02:28] understand 8 to 6 winchester

[7:02:30] boulevard >> should not be re

[7:02:32] zoned as the staff recommended.

[7:02:35] come and see for yourself the

[7:02:37] two legs of this l-shaped

[7:02:39] property surrounded on exterior

[7:02:41] sides by one side with the legs

[7:02:44] >> with the leg connecting to

[7:02:45] winchester being extremely

[7:02:48] narrow. The need for more

[7:02:50] housing doesn't justify trying

[7:02:51] to pack the staff recommended

[7:02:52] level density level into cary

[7:02:55] neighborhood. Those >>

[7:02:56] recommend that's your >> time

[7:02:59] next speaker. This is our final

[7:03:01] speaker. Well this has been a

[7:03:05] fun night. Good evening,

[7:03:07] council. First of all I want to

[7:03:10] thank you staff for the work

[7:03:11] that you've done. And I'd like

[7:03:13] to say mayor mehan, if you

[7:03:14] could be a little bit more

[7:03:15] judicious with that gavel. I've

[7:03:16] heard a lot of clapping

[7:03:17] tonight. >> but I do want to

[7:03:20] speak in very, very strong

[7:03:22] support of the memo from

[7:03:24] councilmembers come in terms

[7:03:27] the desperate desperate need

[7:03:29] for housing in the city is the

[7:03:32] issue not only of the day

[7:03:33] of the decade of multiple

[7:03:34] decades and we really need to

[7:03:37] be willing to take unpopular

[7:03:41] actions that are the right

[7:03:42] thing to do because the reality

[7:03:45] is that this city is so

[7:03:47] unaffordable that people like

[7:03:49] me I'm 24 college student I

[7:03:52] cannot afford to live here if

[7:03:53] things keep getting worse.

[7:03:55] people like me are not a

[7:03:57] rarity. People my age and young

[7:04:00] families are rapidly leaving

[7:04:02] the city and the region for

[7:04:03] lack of affordability. Please

[7:04:05] vote. Thank you. Back to

[7:04:08] council. All right. Thank you,

[7:04:11] toni. Thank you to everyone who

[7:04:14] spoke. We still have a number

[7:04:16] of folks here in the chamber.

[7:04:17] I'm really impressed with

[7:04:18] everyone's wherewithal. It was

[7:04:20] good to hear so many diverse

[7:04:23] perspectives both in person and

[7:04:25] on online. I'm going to may

[7:04:27] make a few comments >> and ask

[7:04:28] a few broader questions to

[7:04:31] frame things up and then turn

[7:04:33] to colleagues. You know, a

[7:04:37] number of residents have asked

[7:04:38] me over the last couple

[7:04:39] of weeks why why are we here?

[7:04:41] what are we what are we doing?

[7:04:42] and >> I think the simplest

[7:04:45] answer chris, I'm going to come

[7:04:47] to you in a second to talk a

[7:04:49] little more about this is that

[7:04:51] we committed to a direction in

[7:04:55] our approved housing element.

[7:04:56] it's worth remembering we had a

[7:04:59] housing element that was not in

[7:05:00] compliance. It took three tries

[7:05:02] and while we were out

[7:05:03] of compliance we had we

[7:05:07] builders remedy essentially

[7:05:08] imposed on the city allowing

[7:05:10] developers to build housing

[7:05:12] even on employment land very

[7:05:14] haphazard development where we

[7:05:15] lost control entirely which is

[7:05:19] a very bad place for the city

[7:05:20] >> to be. And as we came into

[7:05:23] compliance we made a commitment

[7:05:26] to explore some of these more

[7:05:29] modest densities. Now I think

[7:05:31] the community has asked a very

[7:05:32] reasonable question which are

[7:05:34] series of questions which is

[7:05:35] okay, there's been a lot

[7:05:36] of state law that has come down

[7:05:37] our way that has removed local

[7:05:39] control and create a lot

[7:05:41] of mandates. So you have sb 979

[7:05:44] ab 1123 and chris, I think you

[7:05:46] said about 450 bills but those

[7:05:48] are some of the more >>

[7:05:50] consequential ones. And the

[7:05:53] question really is in terms

[7:05:56] of what staff in the planning

[7:05:58] commission are sending to us,

[7:05:59] how different is it from what

[7:06:01] state law already requires and

[7:06:04] where it's different, why and

[7:06:05] really understanding that

[7:06:07] distinction that I think a

[7:06:08] number of people pointed to.

[7:06:09] now I understanding of sb nine

[7:06:12] is that on most single family

[7:06:15] lots in the city today an owner

[7:06:19] a property owner can

[7:06:22] essentially develop four units

[7:06:24] and given that most single

[7:06:27] family lots are around 6000ft²

[7:06:32] we're roughly are in one 8 or 8

[7:06:37] parcels eight lots to the acre.

[7:06:40] four times eight is effectively

[7:06:42] 32. So chris, I just >> could

[7:06:45] you comment first of all on how

[7:06:47] much of a change we're talking

[7:06:48] about what state law currently

[7:06:50] allows a property owner to do?

[7:06:52] and what's the difference and

[7:06:53] why are we doing this? Can you

[7:06:54] just go back through that

[7:06:55] again? Yeah. Thanks, mayor. And

[7:06:59] you have it right? So in the

[7:07:01] prior house in our current

[7:07:03] housing element we committed to

[7:07:05] a missing middle program and

[7:07:06] this actually dates back prior

[7:07:07] to the development of a housing

[7:07:09] element. If you'll recall

[7:07:11] roughly five plus years ago

[7:07:13] there was a conversation around

[7:07:14] what was called at the time

[7:07:15] opportunity housing. And the

[7:07:18] council declined to move

[7:07:19] forward at that time with that

[7:07:20] proposal because sb nine was

[7:07:24] coming into effect and the

[7:07:25] thought was well let's see how

[7:07:26] sb nine goes and you know we

[7:07:30] can see what the implementation

[7:07:32] looks like and what the impact

[7:07:33] to our neighborhoods is. And as

[7:07:35] >> a result, as we then moved

[7:07:37] into our housing element

[7:07:39] process and started to right

[7:07:41] the housing element we are a

[7:07:42] clear indication from hpd that

[7:07:44] they wanted to see a missing

[7:07:46] middle program pursued. >> and

[7:07:48] they were very direct about

[7:07:50] that and you know, they wanted

[7:07:52] to put performance standards

[7:07:53] around that and a timeline

[7:07:54] which are all included in our

[7:07:56] housing element. So you know

[7:07:58] we're about midway through this

[7:08:00] cycle we need to start

[7:08:01] delivering on these programs.

[7:08:03] you know, we've done a

[7:08:04] significant amount of work

[7:08:05] that's led to a lot

[7:08:06] of implementation but this is

[7:08:08] one of the major factors this

[7:08:10] in the urban village strategy.

[7:08:11] so as you approach this four

[7:08:13] year review, you know, we

[7:08:15] wanted to be considerate of the

[7:08:17] current condition. We wanted to

[7:08:19] think about a solution that did

[7:08:21] help preserve the character

[7:08:23] of single family neighborhoods

[7:08:24] when we wrote our general plan.

[7:08:27] a number of the speakers this

[7:08:28] evening have been absolutely

[7:08:29] correct. We prioritized high

[7:08:32] intensity, high density

[7:08:34] development along transit

[7:08:35] corridors and in growth areas.

[7:08:37] and part of the challenges we

[7:08:38] have not seen all of that

[7:08:40] development occur because

[7:08:41] of economics and some of these

[7:08:42] other reasons. So you know,

[7:08:44] part of our approach is we know

[7:08:46] we need to provide a great

[7:08:48] variety >> in the types

[7:08:50] of housing that the market can

[7:08:51] >> achieve that respects and

[7:08:55] preserves the character.

[7:08:56] everything of our single family

[7:08:57] neighborhoods. So we have a

[7:08:59] situation where we're looking

[7:09:00] at this program. We also have a

[7:09:02] number of state laws that have

[7:09:03] been implemented and you're

[7:09:04] absolutely right on the density

[7:09:05] question so under sb nine there

[7:09:08] is the opportunity for four

[7:09:09] primary units in the context

[7:09:11] of to duplexes on one single

[7:09:13] family existing single family

[7:09:15] line. And so we felt like we

[7:09:17] could create a program in the

[7:09:19] city that sort of maintains and

[7:09:21] or was parallel to what sb nine

[7:09:24] would allow but that we could

[7:09:26] design with the context of more

[7:09:28] local design standards and

[7:09:30] controls that would allow us to

[7:09:32] sort of help preserve that

[7:09:33] single family neighborhood

[7:09:34] character. So that's the

[7:09:36] approach that we took. You

[7:09:38] know, we believe that that's

[7:09:39] consistent with the spirit

[7:09:41] of p35 in the housing element.

[7:09:44] but sort of gets us the best

[7:09:45] of both worlds but doesn't

[7:09:47] really extend much beyond what

[7:09:48] you can do on the state level.

[7:09:49] >> okay. Thanks. Can you just

[7:09:51] say the last part again if you

[7:09:52] already today in most

[7:09:55] residential neighborhoods can

[7:09:57] buy a parcel and under state

[7:10:00] law convert it to four to

[7:10:02] redevelop it to four >> units

[7:10:05] which we've seen a few examples

[7:10:06] of but not a lot. My guess is

[7:10:08] that doesn't actually pencil in

[7:10:10] a lot of places but if you can

[7:10:13] that's effectively 32 units to

[7:10:15] the acre. So what's the

[7:10:16] difference? And what you're

[7:10:18] saying there's an advantage to

[7:10:20] having >> this path rather than

[7:10:21] sb nine. So we >> think there's

[7:10:23] an advantage from the city's

[7:10:24] perspective because it allows

[7:10:26] us to implement design

[7:10:28] standards that sort of a more

[7:10:29] respectful of the neighborhood

[7:10:30] character. I think the broader

[7:10:33] policy objective of allowing a

[7:10:35] local program is that there is

[7:10:38] probably more market desire to

[7:10:40] pursue this than some of the

[7:10:41] restrictions that exist under

[7:10:43] sb nine. So right now there's a

[7:10:45] residency requirement, right?

[7:10:47] so somebody who owns the law

[7:10:49] has to stay in residence for

[7:10:50] two years post development. And

[7:10:53] that's been a significant

[7:10:54] barrier to a lot of the people

[7:10:55] that have explored sb nine as

[7:10:56] an opportunity to >> couple

[7:11:00] other issues adjacent to that I

[7:11:02] would like to better understand

[7:11:05] what mergers and whether or not

[7:11:08] that >> is you kind

[7:11:10] of reference to quickly as a

[7:11:11] potential tool that council

[7:11:13] might want to explore and I

[7:11:14] think for context for the

[7:11:15] public this is the first time

[7:11:17] these recommendations are

[7:11:18] coming to the council. There's

[7:11:19] been a process where I'm going

[7:11:21] to talk about the process and

[7:11:22] public input in a moment as

[7:11:24] well. But this is the first

[7:11:26] time we're having this

[7:11:27] conversation at this set

[7:11:29] of recommendations that would

[7:11:30] come back to the council in

[7:11:32] over a year from now. So we are

[7:11:34] not at the end of the

[7:11:36] conversation. I want to be

[7:11:37] really clear about that. On lot

[7:11:41] mergers >> and to use so how to

[7:11:43] add use count in the unit count

[7:11:44] and what should we take from

[7:11:45] that and and what is the risk

[7:11:47] of what mergers or is that

[7:11:49] maybe a restriction that

[7:11:50] council might want to have in

[7:11:51] its toolkit? So >> just to

[7:11:53] start with lot mergers that is

[7:11:54] something that we have the

[7:11:56] ability to put standards in

[7:11:58] place so we can you know,

[7:12:00] restrict the ability to merge

[7:12:02] logs. We can have restrictions

[7:12:04] around lot sizes as well to say

[7:12:06] that you can only do this

[7:12:07] development on a certain size

[7:12:09] that stops people from

[7:12:10] aggregating so >> big corporate

[7:12:11] developer can't come in you

[7:12:13] know merge together, roll up 8

[7:12:16] or 10 single family homes and

[7:12:17] build some massive you know,

[7:12:20] connecting on the middle of oc.

[7:12:22] that seems important. So right

[7:12:24] now >> as it relates to edu law

[7:12:27] and one of the challenges again

[7:12:28] by what we've seen both in

[7:12:31] single family neighborhoods and

[7:12:32] with multifamily development is

[7:12:34] you know adu law tends to layer

[7:12:36] on top of local provisions and

[7:12:41] people are using that in

[7:12:42] multiple different ways and

[7:12:43] obviously there's a there's

[7:12:46] much more much less

[7:12:47] restrictions we can put in

[7:12:48] place on adus. You know,

[7:12:51] certainly they can build in

[7:12:52] reduced setbacks. They require

[7:12:54] no parking. The standards there

[7:12:56] are very different. So in

[7:12:58] theory, you know, adus sit on

[7:13:00] top of whatever requirement we

[7:13:02] create in our end. I think

[7:13:04] again from our approach is to

[7:13:07] design standards that encourage

[7:13:09] the market to deliver a type

[7:13:11] of development similar to the

[7:13:12] types of you know, examples

[7:13:14] that we showed in the

[7:13:15] photographs. And what you'll

[7:13:16]

[7:13:18] the utilizing the lot for the

[7:13:20] four units or the three units

[7:13:22] and it reduces the opportunity

[7:13:24] to leverage edu as a you know

[7:13:26] an additional sort of capacity

[7:13:28] gain. Okay. Thanks. >> I think

[7:13:30] given the way the state

[7:13:31] interprets ada use and the

[7:13:33] count as in not counting them

[7:13:35] though they do count toward our

[7:13:36] arena target so there seems to

[7:13:37] be quite a discrepancy here in

[7:13:39] how the state is as counting

[7:13:41] need to use it yes in one case

[7:13:42] not in another. But I think

[7:13:45] that's part of the motivation

[7:13:46] for our group member to say

[7:13:47] let's look at a range. Let's

[7:13:49] look at 16 to 32. Our member

[7:13:51] also does speak to parking

[7:13:54] requirements. We're allowed by

[7:13:55] state law and the reality is in

[7:13:57] much of the city we are

[7:13:58] preempted by state law and not

[7:14:00] allowed to impose a parking

[7:14:02] requirement. And san jose was

[7:14:04] actually a leader in removing

[7:14:06] parking requirements. But

[7:14:07] really if you were here for

[7:14:09] that conversation it was in the

[7:14:10] context largely of our downtown

[7:14:15] urban villages near transit

[7:14:17] multi-family denser development

[7:14:19] where I remember very

[7:14:20] distinctly one of the big

[7:14:22] things we were pointing to

[7:14:23] which I think still is is very

[7:14:25] valid is the notion

[7:14:26] of unbundled parking. If you

[7:14:28] have an office building next to

[7:14:29] an apartment or condo tower you

[7:14:33] might be able to share the

[7:14:33] parking because people need to

[7:14:35] park at home at night in the

[7:14:36] apartment building and maybe

[7:14:38] park where they work and so you

[7:14:40] could actually make more

[7:14:40] efficient use of unbundled

[7:14:42] parking in a place like

[7:14:43] downtown or urban village. I

[7:14:45] think when you get out into

[7:14:47] councilmember ortiz's district

[7:14:48] where I have walked many times

[7:14:51] and seen families coming home

[7:14:52] you know, people going home

[7:14:53] from a second job having to

[7:14:55] park six blocks from their home

[7:14:57] every night to know that it is

[7:14:59] something that when you get out

[7:15:00] to the periphery of our city

[7:15:01] you really need to be thinking

[7:15:02] about that impact on people's

[7:15:04] lives. I would say for I know

[7:15:06] we have a number of very pro

[7:15:07] housing folks who spoken and I

[7:15:09] you know, often find myself

[7:15:11] very aligned with that

[7:15:12] perspective. I do think that we

[7:15:16] shouldn't be overly

[7:15:17] ideologically rigid about the

[7:15:19] notion that we should never

[7:15:21] have any kind of parking

[7:15:22] requirement anywhere in the

[7:15:23] city. I think that's that's

[7:15:24] overly overly broad. So our

[7:15:26] memo says let's let's study

[7:15:27] that. I really appreciate the

[7:15:29] group memo pointing to density

[7:15:32] in fire high fire risk zones I

[7:15:35] thought that was a really

[7:15:36] thoughtful inclusion. I do

[7:15:39] think we should be looking

[7:15:40] at at lot mergers. So I think

[7:15:42] what our memo and I think

[7:15:43] colleagues memos point to is

[7:15:46] some areas where we really

[7:15:47] ought to study the notion that

[7:15:50] we can be super dense in

[7:15:52] downtown in urban villages and

[7:15:54] then kind of have that go down

[7:15:56] as you go out and start to

[7:15:57] think about some of those other

[7:15:58] impacts I will say I'm really

[7:16:00] proud of all the actions this

[7:16:01] council has taken to be

[7:16:03] extremely pro housing removing

[7:16:07] the you know increasing

[7:16:10] capacity in in our plant growth

[7:16:13] areas, removing the

[7:16:14] construction tax, having to

[7:16:16] park fees, removing the

[7:16:18] unfunded inclusion requirement,

[7:16:21] moving to ministerial

[7:16:22] approvals, getting rid

[7:16:23] of parking requirements. We

[7:16:24] have led so many times on

[7:16:26] saying yes to housing but I do

[7:16:29] think that we need to really be

[7:16:30] thoughtful about how we manage

[7:16:32] change out in our

[7:16:33] neighborhoods. So as was

[7:16:34] pointed out in many cases state

[7:16:36] laws have already dictated a

[7:16:38] density level that you're not

[7:16:39] recommending we go beyond I

[7:16:40] don't think the public really

[7:16:42] understands that which gets to

[7:16:43] my last point. Public input.

[7:16:45] can you just share with us up

[7:16:47] to this point as you went

[7:16:49] through the initial stage

[7:16:50] of the process with the

[7:16:51] planning commission and came

[7:16:52] here to the council for the

[7:16:53] first time with your

[7:16:54] recommendation, what kind

[7:16:56] of community engagement and

[7:16:57] public input you you organized

[7:17:01] and what we can expect over the

[7:17:03] next year as this continues to

[7:17:05] develop. >> yeah it

[7:17:07] sounds great. Let mahan over to

[7:17:08] ruth to talk through public

[7:17:09] outreach and then maybe circle

[7:17:12] back on what to expect. Thank

[7:17:15] >> you mayor so staff in

[7:17:18] partnership with the office

[7:17:19] of racial and social equity and

[7:17:21] our community engagement

[7:17:22] consultant kicked off our

[7:17:24] outreach strategy that we

[7:17:25] discussed with council and

[7:17:26] council approved last year. We

[7:17:29] began with a virtual webinar.

[7:17:32] we also employed different

[7:17:34] methods to reach out to people

[7:17:36] so we had four in-person open

[7:17:37] houses across the city really

[7:17:40] targeting communities that we

[7:17:42] don't often hear from. We had

[7:17:45] several leadership meetings six

[7:17:47] I think it might be seven

[7:17:47] actually we had our town hall

[7:17:49] last week seven neighborhood

[7:17:51] meetings with the office

[7:17:53] of racial and social equity. We

[7:17:55] were able to host three focus

[7:17:56] groups. In addition, we had our

[7:17:59] task force meetings which

[7:18:00] allowed for public comment. I

[7:18:02] think after the first meeting

[7:18:03] public comment was taken before

[7:18:05] the task force sort

[7:18:07] of deliberated and gave us

[7:18:09] their feedback. We met with

[7:18:10] intergovernmental agencies and

[7:18:13] also we sort of did our online

[7:18:17] sort of email blasts and our >>

[7:18:21] virtual open house. I will say

[7:18:23] through our four in-person

[7:18:24] houses we did touch sort

[7:18:27] of communicate with over 800

[7:18:29] residents and people in the

[7:18:30] city. One of these open houses

[7:18:32] was at veeva. So that's the one

[7:18:33] where we actually were able to

[7:18:35] talk to the most most of the

[7:18:36] community and we had roughly

[7:18:39] 400 participants in the virtual

[7:18:41] open house. >> thanks, ruth.

[7:18:43] and then from this point

[7:18:45] forward, whatever direction we

[7:18:46] ultimately settle on here

[7:18:48] you've got a process that runs

[7:18:50] more than a year presumably

[7:18:52] before we take a final vote on

[7:18:54] where we are. What does that

[7:18:57] community engagement look like

[7:18:58] ? Right. There's a number

[7:18:59] of different opportunities for

[7:19:01] us to engage the community both

[7:19:02] in the formal process as we get

[7:19:04] launch our environmental

[7:19:05] process that has, you know,

[7:19:06] very prescriptive elements as

[7:19:08] well as sort of more of the

[7:19:11] community engagement and

[7:19:12] participation opportunities

[7:19:13] that we'll be looking to craft

[7:19:15] as we develop those standards

[7:19:16] so we can create regular

[7:19:18] touchpoints. We don't have all

[7:19:20] of those aspects foley fleshed

[7:19:21] out but I think we're going to

[7:19:22] be looking for opportunities to

[7:19:23] engage with partner departments

[7:19:25] to continue to sort of spread

[7:19:27] the opportunity to talk about

[7:19:29] this as well as engaging with

[7:19:31] those groups that we've managed

[7:19:33] to reach through our process so

[7:19:34] far to keep them you know,

[7:19:36] engaged in this and allow them

[7:19:38] to provide additional feedback

[7:19:39] as we go. >> okay. And sorry to

[7:19:42] put you on the spot with this

[7:19:42] but does ppc have the capacity

[7:19:45] to manage all that public

[7:19:46] engagement? Do we need to talk

[7:19:47] about what else as one team the

[7:19:49] administration might do to

[7:19:50] support a robust public

[7:19:52] engagement process over the

[7:19:53] next year? Yeah, absolutely. I

[7:19:55] think obviously we're going to

[7:19:56] look for those opportunities.

[7:19:57] you know, with the city

[7:19:58] manager's office we've had a

[7:20:00] great partnership with the

[7:20:02] office of racial and social

[7:20:04] equity on our outreach so far.

[7:20:06] and then as I said, I think

[7:20:07] some of those other partner

[7:20:08] departments that are also

[7:20:09] consistently out with the

[7:20:10] community they represent a

[7:20:12] great opportunity for us to

[7:20:13] partner and tag along to spread

[7:20:16] sort of more engagement and

[7:20:18] more information about what

[7:20:19] we're doing. >> yeah, I just I

[7:20:20] really don't want to be here a

[7:20:21] year from now and have people

[7:20:23] feel like they were not aware

[7:20:24] that we were having this

[7:20:25] conversation. So I just hope

[7:20:26] jennifer the spirit

[7:20:28] of leveraging the whole

[7:20:29] capacity of the administration

[7:20:31] that will find more ways to to

[7:20:33] engage the public. I said that

[7:20:34] was my last point. Just very

[7:20:35] quickly though, chris, I do

[7:20:37] want to know more about your

[7:20:38] conversations with side the

[7:20:40] risk of decertification. I

[7:20:41] understand you said you just

[7:20:42] had a call with them. What is

[7:20:44] your sense of what they're

[7:20:47] essentially are our obligations

[7:20:49] are to stay compliant and what

[7:20:51] would avoid decertification and

[7:20:53] going back to builder's remedy

[7:20:54] which I think we all want to

[7:20:55] avoid. >> yeah. So obviously,

[7:20:59] you know, this is really staff

[7:21:00] level guidance. We reach out to

[7:21:02] each side and work with them on

[7:21:03] a fairly regular basis around

[7:21:05] project issues and policy

[7:21:07] issues. So they do make

[7:21:09] themselves available when we

[7:21:10] need to talk through this. So I

[7:21:12] reached out end of last week I

[7:21:15] was on a call with one of the

[7:21:17] senior program managers with

[7:21:19] each side on monday just

[7:21:21] because we wanted to discuss,

[7:21:22] you know, this item coming

[7:21:23] forward to city council and

[7:21:25] just get a sense of how they

[7:21:27] might view, you know, an

[7:21:29] alternate proposal based on

[7:21:30] some of the memos that we were

[7:21:32] seeing coming through from

[7:21:33] council. Like I said, it's

[7:21:35] staff level guidance. It's

[7:21:36] certainly not a written opinion

[7:21:38] by cdd. I think there's a

[7:21:40] couple of important things that

[7:21:42] came from that conversation. So

[7:21:43] one is they look at our missing

[7:21:45] middle program. Really the

[7:21:47] focus is creating opportunities

[7:21:49] for diverse housing in high

[7:21:52] opportunity areas areas where

[7:21:54] they don't currently exist.

[7:21:56] there's a chart we used in I

[7:21:58] think a study session and in

[7:21:59] some of the other presentations

[7:22:01] we've done that really

[7:22:02] highlights that you know it

[7:22:04] really is a missing middle.

[7:22:05] there's a huge gap around these

[7:22:06] types of housing throughout the

[7:22:08] city. And so what they're

[7:22:11] looking for and you saw the

[7:22:12] high opportunity map is how do

[7:22:14] we create opportunities for for

[7:22:17] that gap, right? That's the gap

[7:22:18] that ultimately we have. You

[7:22:21] had it there for a second and

[7:22:25] it's really around, you know,

[7:22:26] so I mean we don't have a ton

[7:22:28] of duplexes. It's really around

[7:22:29] those opportunities for two or

[7:22:31] 3 or 4 units. You know, we're

[7:22:33] seeing more opportunity through

[7:22:35] some state law in the sort of,

[7:22:36] you know, 10 to 20 and plus I'm

[7:22:39] seeing some success there. But

[7:22:41] they really sort of focused on

[7:22:42] that high opportunity area

[7:22:43] piece. What they did say was,

[7:22:45] you know, obviously as they're

[7:22:46] focused on it, they're looking

[7:22:48] at what's already allowed under

[7:22:49] state law and while, you know,

[7:22:51] sb nine does allow up to four,

[7:22:53] you know the focus in many sort

[7:22:55] of places has been on lot

[7:22:56] splits that allow two single

[7:22:57] family homes. So in their

[7:23:00] opinion, you know, they didn't

[7:23:02] feel like a six units to the

[7:23:06] acres sort of program was

[7:23:08] substantially different from

[7:23:09] what we would expect to see

[7:23:10] under the current provisions

[7:23:12] of sb nine. So they felt like

[7:23:14] that, you know, would be a

[7:23:15] concern now, you know, whatever

[7:23:18] council's decision is today and

[7:23:19] ultimately with implementation

[7:23:21] of a program, it doesn't mean

[7:23:23] that we're facing, you know,

[7:23:25] the immediate repercussions of,

[7:23:27] you know, decertification.

[7:23:29] there's a process associated

[7:23:30] with that that's baked into

[7:23:31] state law into the government

[7:23:34] code. You know, we would

[7:23:34] certainly have the opportunity

[7:23:35] to work with hpd to understand

[7:23:37] that. But I think it's

[7:23:39] important to understand that

[7:23:40] there is a risk that currently

[7:23:41] performing mid-cycle reviews

[7:23:43] with all of the cities that

[7:23:44] have, you know, housing

[7:23:46] elements we just got a call

[7:23:47] from them in july to do a

[7:23:49] mid-cycle review. As was noted,

[7:23:52] most cities are not performing

[7:23:54] on the delivery of housing on

[7:23:55] their arena number. So they are

[7:23:57] really focused on program

[7:23:59] performance. So when you look

[7:24:00] at some of the challenges that

[7:24:01] other cities have had with you

[7:24:03] know, all the way to

[7:24:04] decertification but also in

[7:24:06] just you know, noncompliance

[7:24:08] letters and some of the other

[7:24:09] challenges, it's really been

[7:24:11] around programing

[7:24:12] implementation rather than

[7:24:14] holding them to the minimum.

[7:24:18] all >> right. Thanks for that

[7:24:19] additional context from your

[7:24:20] conversations with each city. I

[7:24:22] think that's helpful. Okay. I

[7:24:23] know the mix reset I had

[7:24:26] councilmember cohen first and

[7:24:27] then I did not keep track

[7:24:28] of the rest but the mikes reset

[7:24:30] about two hours into public

[7:24:31] comment. So I'm going to go to

[7:24:32] councilor cohen next. Just

[7:24:35] before just before we

[7:24:37] go forward, I just want to make

[7:24:38] a note that I just I told >> on

[7:24:42] councilmember cohen I'm sorry

[7:24:43] he was first with the mikes

[7:24:45] reset. I'm going to go to

[7:24:46] councilmember calling first.

[7:24:47] thank you. >> well, thank you

[7:24:48] first of all to staff for all

[7:24:50] the work that's gone into it up

[7:24:51] to this point and thanks to all

[7:24:53] the members of the public who

[7:24:54] came out on both sides on all

[7:24:55] sides of this issue. It's not

[7:24:56] two sides. It's actually a lot

[7:24:58] in this proposal, a lot more

[7:24:59] than just one element although

[7:25:01] I know a lot of the interest is

[7:25:03] on the missing middle element.

[7:25:04] there's a lot in this and so I

[7:25:05] don't want to lose sight of the

[7:25:06] fact that this is a much more

[7:25:08] comprehensive look at the

[7:25:09] general plan than just this one

[7:25:10] issue of missing middle in

[7:25:11] residential neighborhoods. But

[7:25:14] I know that there's a lot

[7:25:16] of well-placed fears when when

[7:25:19] there's the potential to change

[7:25:20] zoning. And so I want to thank

[7:25:22] people who came out and and

[7:25:24] expressed that and sat through

[7:25:25] this long discussion of our

[7:25:26] meeting. I know many have gone

[7:25:27] home probably to listen online

[7:25:28] but I appreciate those who have

[7:25:29] stayed and want to listen to

[7:25:31] the rest of the conversation.

[7:25:33] I'm going to just start first

[7:25:35] of all just talking a little

[7:25:35] bit about the missing middle

[7:25:36] item and then talk about a

[7:25:38] couple of other things.

[7:25:38] although I want to point out I

[7:25:39] know some couple of commenters

[7:25:40] talked about the focus on areas

[7:25:43] where we want higher density

[7:25:44] and north san jose is one I

[7:25:46] represent north san jose.

[7:25:47] my focus regardless of how this

[7:25:48] moves forward will continue to

[7:25:49] be on bringing developers into

[7:25:51] north san jose to build high

[7:25:52] density housing where we want

[7:25:54] high density housing and I'm

[7:25:55] excited about several projects

[7:25:57] that are under construction now

[7:25:58] and coming that are in much

[7:26:00] higher density places. That's

[7:26:01] what we're going to get a lot

[7:26:02] of our housing units and will

[7:26:03] continue to be my focus. But I

[7:26:05] also want to point out that

[7:26:06] rightfully so our staff and

[7:26:08] myself are continued to focus

[7:26:10] on preserving commercial land

[7:26:13] in north san jose and not

[7:26:14] rushing to convert commercial

[7:26:16] land into the housing as well.

[7:26:18] we have a lot of land in north

[7:26:20] san jose that's designated for

[7:26:21] housing but our commercial land

[7:26:23] is really important to us and

[7:26:24] we don't want to lose it. You

[7:26:27] know there's there are concerns

[7:26:30] >> about what it looks like

[7:26:31] when people build this kind

[7:26:32] of this kind of multi-unit or

[7:26:35] turn a property from one house

[7:26:36] into several. And I just want

[7:26:38] to say in my district there are

[7:26:39] already some examples of some

[7:26:40] sites where people have used sb

[7:26:41] nine to subdivide and build 3

[7:26:45] to 5 units mostly three and

[7:26:47] four units on a single

[7:26:48] property. You can see them

[7:26:49] along piedmont road and a

[7:26:50] couple of places usually it's

[7:26:52] done where there's a

[7:26:53] dilapidated or vacant parcel

[7:26:56] very rare that someone's going

[7:26:57] to, you know, buy a $2.5

[7:26:59] million house and then decide

[7:27:00] to tear it down. I mean that's

[7:27:01] you know, economically I don't

[7:27:02] know that it works but a lot

[7:27:03] of this happens where there's

[7:27:05] something that needs to be

[7:27:06] replaced anyway. But you can

[7:27:09] see that these don't really

[7:27:11] change. This doesn't happen

[7:27:13] enough enough to change the

[7:27:14] overall character of the

[7:27:15] neighborhoods that that they're

[7:27:16] happening in. But I do

[7:27:17] appreciate your explanation as

[7:27:19] to why having our own procedure

[7:27:22] can actually allow us to

[7:27:24] implement better codes or

[7:27:25] requirements in the development

[7:27:27] because if people use sb nine

[7:27:28] we have no say over what a very

[7:27:30] little say over what those

[7:27:32] projects end up looking like.

[7:27:34] there are also neighborhoods in

[7:27:35] my district that are mostly

[7:27:36] single family but have >> 430

[7:27:38] to 40 years have had duplexes

[7:27:40] and fourplex in them so you can

[7:27:42] walk those neighborhoods and

[7:27:43] see that mix. Sometimes you

[7:27:45] don't even know that some

[7:27:46] of the buildings are fourplex

[7:27:48] versus the single family homes

[7:27:49] next door. So there are

[7:27:51] examples of neighborhoods where

[7:27:52] that mix is working. Having

[7:27:55] said that, we have 11 people on

[7:27:57] this council and I suspect

[7:27:58] there's 11 opinions as to what

[7:28:00] the right outcome is. So you

[7:28:02] will see that in the memo that

[7:28:04] I was part of along with mayor

[7:28:06] mehan and kosmas foley, casey

[7:28:08] and campos that we are asking

[7:28:11] for staff to do the analysis

[7:28:13] of a range of densities so that

[7:28:15] we have an understanding as to

[7:28:17] what the analysis tells us

[7:28:19] while we also working with hpd

[7:28:20] and continuing to gather public

[7:28:22] input. So our item asks for

[7:28:24] continuing to review 1624 and

[7:28:26] 32 as potential numbers and we

[7:28:30] obviously be having this

[7:28:31] conversation going forward.

[7:28:32] it's another six months at a

[7:28:35] minimum before we would be

[7:28:36] voting on some final outcome

[7:28:39] here. The other thing that was

[7:28:40] important to me and I know I

[7:28:42] heard from a lot of members

[7:28:43] of the public was this question

[7:28:44] of parking right now and this

[7:28:46] is something that's kind

[7:28:48] of lost in this conversation

[7:28:49] right now. There's many homes

[7:28:50] in our city because of the

[7:28:51] affordability issues where

[7:28:53] multiple families are living in

[7:28:54] a single family home. That's

[7:28:56] pretty much the same outcome as

[7:28:59] a four plex on a property with

[7:29:00] four families living in it. If

[7:29:01] you have a single family home

[7:29:03] with multiple families living

[7:29:04] in it, I would say it's

[7:29:06] preferable to have separate

[7:29:07] units for each of those

[7:29:08] families. So >> the result

[7:29:10] though and in case and I know

[7:29:11] some districts like district

[7:29:12] five are particularly impacted

[7:29:14] but all of our districts have

[7:29:15] it is that there is not parking

[7:29:17] and we end up with this parking

[7:29:19] problem where multiple families

[7:29:20] are living in single family

[7:29:21] homes now we have parking

[7:29:23] overflowing. We have issues on

[7:29:25] the streets based on that

[7:29:26] experience I feel that it's

[7:29:28] important for us to outside

[7:29:31] of the state restricted areas

[7:29:33] to create a parking standard.

[7:29:35] and my understanding I think

[7:29:36] you kind of said this before is

[7:29:37] that those who are doing this

[7:29:39] now are typically including

[7:29:41] parking. Can you clarify this?

[7:29:42] but typically including parking

[7:29:44] because they want a sellable

[7:29:45] marketable product when they're

[7:29:47] done? That's correct. Yeah. The

[7:29:48] examples we've seen so far have

[7:29:50] included parking and again when

[7:29:51] we removed our parking minimums

[7:29:54] part of that conversation was

[7:29:56] that the market would adjust to

[7:29:58] provide the appropriate parking

[7:29:59] and you know we've seen

[7:30:01] examples where that's gone both

[7:30:03] ways but in instances like this

[7:30:05] we've seen it always provide

[7:30:06] at >> least clearly in the

[7:30:07] higher density projects there's

[7:30:09] still there's still some

[7:30:10] experimentation that that's

[7:30:11] happening. But I think in these

[7:30:13] lower density sites that it's

[7:30:14] typical that they're wanting to

[7:30:16] provide at least one parking

[7:30:17] space for each unit that

[7:30:18] they're building already. So

[7:30:19] I'm going >> to try to craft

[7:30:20] out of all the memos and I

[7:30:21] appreciate all the all of my

[7:30:23] colleagues on the council for

[7:30:24] all the work that they've done

[7:30:26] on various things and I'm going

[7:30:27] to put together a motion

[7:30:31] combining >> a whole lot

[7:30:32] of stuff and leaving some

[7:30:34] openings for additional

[7:30:35] conversation on some of the

[7:30:36] things that I'm not clear on in

[7:30:37] other people's memos. >> first

[7:30:40] moving the the full group memo

[7:30:43] >> that that I was part of that

[7:30:45] includes the parking not

[7:30:46] parking it number the range

[7:30:49] of explanation of the range

[7:30:50] of densities pickup and I'm

[7:30:53] going to make a quick comment

[7:30:54] about pickup while I'm on it

[7:30:55] though there's been some

[7:30:58] discussion about blanket

[7:31:00] rezoning of pickup properties.

[7:31:02] I think it's important for us

[7:31:03] to to continue to have that

[7:31:06] message out there that in the

[7:31:07] long run there will be a

[7:31:09] certain amount of pickup

[7:31:10] properties that are necessary

[7:31:12] as we hope that more

[7:31:13] affordability gets in place and

[7:31:14] more children come back into

[7:31:15] our communities. We shouldn't

[7:31:18] encourage the wholesale loss

[7:31:20] of pickup lands and so I think

[7:31:21] a thoughtful process for each

[7:31:22] peak conversion is important

[7:31:24] but I think an expedited

[7:31:26] process to do that pickup

[7:31:28] conversion would be helpful to

[7:31:30] people who want to make that

[7:31:31] conversion. But there's a

[7:31:32] couple of items here on pickup.

[7:31:33] there's also a specific item in

[7:31:35] south san jose. Our item number

[7:31:37] two in our memo for a the

[7:31:39] property at coral on coral road

[7:31:42] in district two >> in the memo

[7:31:44] from candela ahi and or ts I'm

[7:31:48] going to at this point include

[7:31:50] item 1ai1 which is the moderate

[7:31:55] fire severity zones making sure

[7:31:56] that we are taking that into

[7:31:57] account in our in our plans

[7:32:01] because I know that some of our

[7:32:02] districts in the hillsides

[7:32:03] particularly have that issue

[7:32:04] and some of them don't have a

[7:32:06] lot of ways in or out of those

[7:32:07] neighborhoods. So it's

[7:32:07] important for us to take that

[7:32:09] into account. >> the one be in

[7:32:15] that memo include one, be in

[7:32:17] that memo on one, see, I'm

[7:32:19] going to I'm going to probably

[7:32:20] ask councilmember kay later to

[7:32:22] make some clarification.

[7:32:24] my motion at this point will

[7:32:26] ask that we don't rezone as was

[7:32:28] recommended by the planning

[7:32:30] department because

[7:32:32] my understanding from their

[7:32:33] explanation is that the the

[7:32:36] moon designation would actually

[7:32:38] potentially underutilized some

[7:32:40] properties on that on that

[7:32:42] place but leaving it the way it

[7:32:43] is would allow side by side

[7:32:44] discussions about appropriate

[7:32:46] uses. But we can discuss that

[7:32:48] as we move forward >> include

[7:32:51] item d and e from the memo and

[7:32:56] on f. Well I support the idea

[7:32:59] >> we will bring will be

[7:33:00] included and included in the

[7:33:02] october 6th discussion from pbc

[7:33:04] on the overall set

[7:33:05] of priorities of all the work

[7:33:06] that they've been asked to do.

[7:33:08] so we will include that but it

[7:33:09] would go to that the priority

[7:33:11] session on that at that time

[7:33:15] and the memo from tordillos and

[7:33:17] may I we I did not have the

[7:33:20] benefit of being part of the

[7:33:21] brown act to understand number

[7:33:23] one as well as I should and get

[7:33:25] a full feel for the rationale

[7:33:27] and all the thought so I'm

[7:33:28] leaving it out of the motion

[7:33:29] but offering the opportunity

[7:33:31] for the members of that brown

[7:33:33] act or the members of that the

[7:33:34] authors of that memo to provide

[7:33:36] context and we'll consider that

[7:33:39] one independently include item

[7:33:42] number two changing the >> word

[7:33:44] develop to explore and include

[7:33:47] number three and on number four

[7:33:53] include it with the caveat that

[7:33:55] I would like a better

[7:33:56] clarification of the definition

[7:33:58] of downtown. I'm a little

[7:33:59] concerned about how wide

[7:34:00] ranging it could be and and

[7:34:02] exactly what that means. So

[7:34:04] leaving it open for us to

[7:34:06] discuss the actual definition

[7:34:08] in the motion and then item

[7:34:10] five one would be included as

[7:34:13] part of our number which number

[7:34:18] was that? Our our number are

[7:34:20] one >> pc0 sorry 11c so

[7:34:24] basically it's the same thing

[7:34:25] allowing the commercial and

[7:34:27] then including these

[7:34:28] restrictions on that commercial

[7:34:30] as part of you would include

[7:34:31] the sub point include the sub

[7:34:32] point as part of our one c in

[7:34:34] our underlying memo. So that's

[7:34:37] the that's the motion that I

[7:34:39] put on the floor. Thank you. Oh

[7:34:41] yeah, sure. On >> our memo what

[7:34:44] did you say about one d and >>

[7:34:49] I, I included danny yeah as as

[7:34:52] written. >> okay. I think

[7:34:55] that's a great basis for

[7:34:56] discussion and I appreciate

[7:34:59] that. Councilor don, I know you

[7:35:04] had also I think you got out

[7:35:05] of line there when we had the

[7:35:06] confusion a moment ago so I'll

[7:35:08] let you go and go next and then

[7:35:09] I'm going to go through the

[7:35:10] order I have on my screen. But

[7:35:11] go ahead, councilor one >> I

[7:35:13] appreciate that mayor how well

[7:35:16] I support two san jose goal to

[7:35:18] have producing more housing and

[7:35:19] recognized a needs for

[7:35:21] additional housing option.

[7:35:24] my concern is whether we built

[7:35:26] housing it is where and how we

[7:35:29] add these density >> and

[7:35:32] particularly concerns about the

[7:35:34] impact of the proposed

[7:35:36] implementation of p dash 35 and

[7:35:40] missing middle housing on

[7:35:42] establish single family

[7:35:44] neighborhood and district >>

[7:35:45] £0.07 >> 35 call for expanding

[7:35:48] opportunity for small multi

[7:35:51] housing multifamily housing

[7:35:54] generally 4 to 10 units but the

[7:35:56] original policy contemplate

[7:35:59] strategically location

[7:36:01] including major street urban

[7:36:04] village area transition area

[7:36:07] and other location appropriate

[7:36:09] for additional density. I am

[7:36:13] concerned that >> the current

[7:36:14] four year review could take

[7:36:16] that concept much further by

[7:36:19] substantially increasing

[7:36:21] development capacity throughout

[7:36:22] residential neighborhood area

[7:36:26] before doing >> that, council

[7:36:27] should clearly establish

[7:36:29] whether this broader approach

[7:36:31] is actually necessary to

[7:36:33] accomplish the goal of p 35. It

[7:36:37] >> changed from predominantly

[7:36:39] one home per parcel to the

[7:36:42] possibility of 4 to 10 units

[7:36:44] per parcel is not simply an

[7:36:47] increase of housing supply. It

[7:36:50] >> can fundamentally change the

[7:36:51] physical characters of the

[7:36:53] neighborhood. Speaking

[7:36:55] specifically to district seven,

[7:36:57] the city has designated area

[7:36:59] for substantial growth and

[7:37:01] redevelopment. I want the staff

[7:37:04] to explain why additional >>

[7:37:06] density needs to be broadly

[7:37:08] distributed across establish >>

[7:37:11] residential neighborhood rather

[7:37:13] than concentrate on more growth

[7:37:16] along major corridor transit,

[7:37:20] urban village and other areas

[7:37:22] already plan for greater

[7:37:23] intensity different

[7:37:26] neighborhoods have different

[7:37:27] street worth infrastructure

[7:37:29] transit access and existing

[7:37:32] density. A citywide standard

[7:37:36] may not produce a proper result

[7:37:38] in every single neighborhood.

[7:37:42] my memorandum proposed a four

[7:37:47] weeks delay on this item for

[7:37:51] staff to return. Would it clear

[7:37:55] to the lack of information and

[7:37:58] or misinformation causing or

[7:38:01] resident concerns such as

[7:38:02] increased traffic, parking,

[7:38:05] congestion overcrowding,

[7:38:08] property value and change in

[7:38:10] the neighborhood? Characters?

[7:38:14] and I think that we need to

[7:38:17] make it even more transparency

[7:38:19] c to reduce >> the amount

[7:38:21] of confusion especially an

[7:38:24] overwhelming letter that was

[7:38:27] sent in from the public

[7:38:28] comments saying no and the

[7:38:30] government should not interfere

[7:38:32] with the free market therefore

[7:38:35] we need more time so >>

[7:38:38] therefore I move to have in

[7:38:40] substitution >> to >> approve

[7:38:45] my memorandums for a 30 days

[7:38:51] setback to reset to engage >>

[7:38:54] more with our constituent to

[7:38:57] make sure we hear and

[7:38:58] understand what their concern

[7:39:01] and end of the day there is a

[7:39:04] very legit argument that our

[7:39:08] constituent voters in to be

[7:39:12] their representation >> and I

[7:39:15] asked for a second >> right to

[7:39:19] have a second on the substitute

[7:39:21] I'm not hearing any you did I

[7:39:25] did hear a question for staff

[7:39:26] in there did you? Yes, I do and

[7:39:28] let me you want to ask that as

[7:39:30] to staff question on this why

[7:39:35] >> isn't the city concentrate

[7:39:36] more of the additional housing

[7:39:38] capacity in the existing growth

[7:39:40] area like urban villages, major

[7:39:43] corridor corridors, transit

[7:39:46] before changing the development

[7:39:48] pattern of the established

[7:39:51] neighborhood. So again,

[7:39:56] councilmember and maybe I'll

[7:39:57] let the team answer this as

[7:39:58] well but you know we continue

[7:40:01] to believe that growth in our

[7:40:03] growth areas and urban villages

[7:40:05] along the transit corridors and

[7:40:07] you know, major arterials is

[7:40:09] absolutely the the right way to

[7:40:12] go. There's you know, a

[7:40:13] considerable amount of housing

[7:40:15] capacity already contained in

[7:40:17] those areas and we have over I

[7:40:21] think it's over 26,000 units

[7:40:23] entitled throughout the city

[7:40:25] for various different types

[7:40:26] of housing development. And I

[7:40:27] think what we're trying to

[7:40:28] achieve with this policy is a

[7:40:31] diversity of housing type. So

[7:40:33] really sort of address that gap

[7:40:35] where we don't have an

[7:40:37] opportunity for this well you

[7:40:40] know it is an increase in

[7:40:41] density. We would still

[7:40:42] consider this lower density

[7:40:45] than some of those other areas.

[7:40:47] we don't have opportunity for

[7:40:48] these types of developments

[7:40:49] around the city where you can

[7:40:50] see, you know, rowhouses or

[7:40:52] town townhomes or small

[7:40:53] apartment blocks. So you know,

[7:40:55] we don't want to go back and

[7:40:57] reduce the density in any

[7:40:58] of those growth areas to allow

[7:41:00] for this type of development.

[7:41:02] so we're looking for other

[7:41:03] opportunities is and you know,

[7:41:05] the most the most practical

[7:41:09] alternative is to find a

[7:41:10] solution that's in keeping with

[7:41:11] the neighborhood character in

[7:41:12] our single family districts and

[7:41:14] allow this you know what some

[7:41:15] people refer to as gentle

[7:41:17] density throughout the city in

[7:41:19] a way that sort of equitable.

[7:41:22] if I could just add to

[7:41:24] councilmember jared ferguson,

[7:41:25] principal planner, something we

[7:41:27] haven't spent a ton of time

[7:41:28] talking about but chris

[7:41:29] mentioned in his presentation a

[7:41:31] key point of what we were

[7:41:32] undergoing in this for you

[7:41:33] review is also a part of our

[7:41:34] housing element to evaluate our

[7:41:36] urban village strategy. It was

[7:41:38] something mentioned in the

[7:41:39] letter from hpd that they were

[7:41:41] going to be monitoring but how

[7:41:42] we could improve and speed up

[7:41:44] how we do our urban village

[7:41:45] plans because it is still an

[7:41:47] emphasis that we do want to see

[7:41:48] continued housing production in

[7:41:50] those areas. But how do we

[7:41:52] speed up the completion of the

[7:41:54] plans for the 40 plus village

[7:41:55] that haven't been planned since

[7:41:58] 2011? So >> it is still a very

[7:42:00] key and important aspect of how

[7:42:02] we're going to produce housing.

[7:42:04] but this is an additional

[7:42:06] strategy to to produce units

[7:42:07] above and beyond that. Thank

[7:42:09] you for that explanation. But I

[7:42:11] understand that even though we

[7:42:12] estimated at 26,000 housing

[7:42:15] toward the transit and the

[7:42:17] major corridors but we haven't

[7:42:19] seen those fruition >> until we

[7:42:23] see the fruition we we can't

[7:42:25] put the horse >> and the cart

[7:42:27] before the horse. We have to

[7:42:29] take one >> step at a time. We

[7:42:32] see those fruition then we can

[7:42:34] go okay, we can take the next

[7:42:36] steps and I think it's

[7:42:38] important that again I want to

[7:42:41] make sure that even though

[7:42:44] there's no one second

[7:42:46] my substitution, I want to make

[7:42:48] sure that the communication,

[7:42:50] the transparency to our

[7:42:52] residents out there continues

[7:42:55] as we move forward. >> thank

[7:42:57] you so much. Thanks,

[7:43:00] councilmember and I appreciate

[7:43:01] your emphasis on public input

[7:43:02] which is why I also asked some

[7:43:03] questions about how many town

[7:43:06] halls and other outreach

[7:43:07] opportunities have we had so

[7:43:08] far and then over the next six

[7:43:10] months or so, what's the

[7:43:12] expectation for actually doing

[7:43:13] even more because we certainly

[7:43:15] don't want residents to come

[7:43:16] here a year a year from now and

[7:43:17] feel like they didn't have

[7:43:18] ample opportunity to really

[7:43:20] learn and engage and give

[7:43:21] input. All right. Thank you,

[7:43:23] councilor. Let's go now to

[7:43:25] councilmember claudius. >>

[7:43:28] thank you, mayor. And thank you

[7:43:29] everyone from the public who

[7:43:30] came out to speak today and

[7:43:31] provided comments online even

[7:43:33] though there are again a

[7:43:34] diversity of opinions in the

[7:43:35] room today. And I also want to

[7:43:36] thank members of the planning

[7:43:38] commission and planning staff

[7:43:39] who've been working on this for

[7:43:40] the better part of a year to

[7:43:42] get us to this point. You know,

[7:43:43] as I was preparing for today's

[7:43:45] meeting I saw a headline that I

[7:43:46] think really for me put the

[7:43:47] stakes of these sorts

[7:43:48] of decisions into context. I

[7:43:50] think some of the public

[7:43:50] commenters referenced that as

[7:43:52] well and it was around the

[7:43:53] publication of the 2026 silicon

[7:43:55] valley pain index and that

[7:43:57] report leads off with a pretty

[7:43:59] sobering statistic which is

[7:44:00] that there was yet another

[7:44:01] study that identified san jose

[7:44:04] as the least affordable city to

[7:44:05] purchase a home anywhere in the

[7:44:07] world. So I know throughout the

[7:44:09] public comment tonight there

[7:44:10] was a lot of talk about the

[7:44:11] american dream and what that

[7:44:12] means and I personally don't

[7:44:14] think that we can sit up here

[7:44:15] and pretend as if the american

[7:44:16] dream is alive and well when

[7:44:18] homeownership is so out

[7:44:19] of reach for so many of our

[7:44:21] residents here in san jose and

[7:44:24] even amongst those who do

[7:44:25] manage to purchase homes, data

[7:44:27] from the american community

[7:44:28] survey shows that over a third

[7:44:29] of homeowners in san jose are

[7:44:31] currently cost burdened and the

[7:44:32] story is far worse for renters

[7:44:34] with data showing that well

[7:44:35] over half of renters in our

[7:44:37] city are rent burdened. I've

[7:44:39] said it before and >> I'll say

[7:44:39] it again that in my limited

[7:44:41] time in this office addressing

[7:44:43] our housing affordability

[7:44:44] crisis is my number one

[7:44:45] priority and the fact is that

[7:44:47] we know that the root cause >>

[7:44:48] of that crisis is a severe lack

[7:44:50] of housing. At the same time we

[7:44:52] know that the city continues to

[7:44:54] fall dramatically short of all

[7:44:55] of our housing goals so far

[7:44:57] with the most recent progress

[7:44:58] report, we're on track to meet

[7:45:00] about one third of our rina >>

[7:45:01] obligation foley acknowledging

[7:45:03] that other cities are also

[7:45:04] struggling in that department.

[7:45:06] but with that translates to is

[7:45:07] a shortfall of about 40,000

[7:45:09] homes and critically this is

[7:45:11] not some recent trend that we

[7:45:13] can just attribute to the

[7:45:14] pandemic or to the current

[7:45:15] interest rate environment or to

[7:45:17] tariffs driving up the cost

[7:45:18] of materials. This is a trend

[7:45:20] that has held for many years

[7:45:23] and we've missed our housing

[7:45:24] targets by a significant margin

[7:45:26] every single year since 2014.

[7:45:29] and to me that means that we do

[7:45:30] need to look at new strategies.

[7:45:32] I want to acknowledge that many

[7:45:33] of the commenters here today

[7:45:34] did clarify that they're not

[7:45:36] opposed to all new housing.

[7:45:37] they just question if it needs

[7:45:38] to be happening in their

[7:45:39] neighborhoods. And I think

[7:45:40] folks have raised some very

[7:45:41] well reasoned questions about

[7:45:43] why we can't just meet our

[7:45:45] housing goals or whether we

[7:45:46] can't meet those goals by just

[7:45:47] focusing on construction in our

[7:45:49] urban villages and in downtown.

[7:45:51] but I think that our history in

[7:45:53] this domain has shown that the

[7:45:54] honest answer to that question

[7:45:56] is that no, we cannot. That

[7:45:58] focus on trying to funnel

[7:45:59] nearly all new housing growth

[7:46:01] in our city into a tiny sliver

[7:46:03] of our land has been the

[7:46:05] dominant strategy that we have

[7:46:06] pursued for housing growth

[7:46:07] since the adoption of our

[7:46:08] current general plan back in

[7:46:10] 2011. And I think if we are

[7:46:11] being honest with ourselves

[7:46:13] that strategy has largely

[7:46:14] failed and it is the most

[7:46:15] vulnerable residents in our

[7:46:17] community who have

[7:46:17] disproportionately borne the

[7:46:19] price of that failure. So to

[7:46:21] me I think it's clear we need

[7:46:22] to be open to new approaches

[7:46:23] here and I think as a city we

[7:46:25] need to move past the notion

[7:46:26] that somehow we're going to

[7:46:27] meet all of the new housing

[7:46:28] need for a city of a million

[7:46:29] people on just the without ever

[7:46:32] touching the 80 or 90% of land

[7:46:34] that is currently zoned to only

[7:46:36] allow single family homes. You

[7:46:38] know, folks have rightfully

[7:46:39] questioned what this might mean

[7:46:41] in terms of changes to their

[7:46:42] neighborhood. I know my husband

[7:46:43] gave public comment and he

[7:46:44] noted that we live in between a

[7:46:47] six plex and a five plex on a

[7:46:49] block that has about half

[7:46:50] single family homes and half

[7:46:51] small apartment buildings. I

[7:46:52] don't think that I've

[7:46:53] personally seen in

[7:46:54] my experience the sorts

[7:46:55] of quality life concerns that

[7:46:56] some folks are concerned about.

[7:46:58] but change is scary. But I will

[7:47:00] just say that rejecting this

[7:47:01] proposal will not prevent our

[7:47:03] neighborhoods from changing.

[7:47:04] all it will do is further the

[7:47:06] trends that we are already

[7:47:07] seeing with growing

[7:47:08] homelessness continued

[7:47:09] displacement of our most

[7:47:10] vulnerable residents. We will

[7:47:12] continue to see the strain on

[7:47:14] all of our teachers >> and our

[7:47:15] public workers and our police

[7:47:16] officers who can't afford to >>

[7:47:18] live in the cities that they

[7:47:19] serve. And we'll see the

[7:47:20] continuing impacts on families

[7:47:22] as young people are priced out

[7:47:24] of >> the city because they

[7:47:25] realize that they can't afford

[7:47:26] to raise children here. I also

[7:47:27] think it is important that we

[7:47:28] as a council move forward with

[7:47:29] this proposal on missing little

[7:47:32] housing today. I did want >> to

[7:47:34] just touch on a couple of the

[7:47:35] things that I heard because I

[7:47:36] think there's been a lot

[7:47:36] of confusion and misinformation

[7:47:38] around some of these proposals.

[7:47:40] you know, we repeatedly heard

[7:47:41] people referencing 16 unit

[7:47:43] apartment buildings, 20 unit

[7:47:44] apartment buildings, people

[7:47:45] saying that this will make us

[7:47:46] denser than new york city. I

[7:47:48] just want to be absolutely

[7:47:48] crystal clear that that is not

[7:47:50] what this proposal is about.

[7:47:52] for the vast majority of the

[7:47:53] single family lots in the city,

[7:47:54] this proposal will translate to

[7:47:56] a modest increase over what is

[7:47:57] already allowed under state law

[7:47:59] as the mayor outlined most

[7:48:00] likely 2 to 6 primary homes on

[7:48:02] most parcels throughout the

[7:48:04] city. >> and we have also heard

[7:48:05] that this proposal was extreme

[7:48:07] but it is way out of alignment

[7:48:09] with what other major cities

[7:48:10] are doing to tackle our housing

[7:48:11] crisis. I don't think that that

[7:48:13] is borne out in the data that

[7:48:15] I've seen and if anything I

[7:48:16] think that the program that

[7:48:17] we're proposing here is

[7:48:18] actually much more modest than

[7:48:20] what some other cities are

[7:48:21] doing. A couple of years ago

[7:48:23] washington state passed a law

[7:48:24] that legalized six units per

[7:48:26] single family parcel in every

[7:48:27] single major city in the state.

[7:48:29] and here in california,

[7:48:31] san diego already allows seven

[7:48:32] units per single person single

[7:48:34] family home parcel >> which

[7:48:35] works out to about 30 to 50

[7:48:37] dwelling units per acre more

[7:48:38] than we're proposing here in

[7:48:40] berkeley as was mentioned about

[7:48:41] 70 dwelling units per acre more

[7:48:43] than double what san jose is

[7:48:44] evaluating and sacramento has

[7:48:46] no density cap at all. On the

[7:48:48] missing middle programs in

[7:48:49] their residential zones

[7:48:50] allowing ten or more units on

[7:48:51] single family lots. And finally

[7:48:54] I just want to speak to this

[7:48:54] notion that this is not a

[7:48:56] required program. You know,

[7:48:58] staff has already spoke to the

[7:48:59] risk of decertification by hpd

[7:49:02] and I agree that that is not

[7:49:03] something that would be

[7:49:04] immediate but I do think it is

[7:49:05] a very real risk. The city made

[7:49:07] very clear commitments in our

[7:49:08] housing element that we would

[7:49:09] allow 4 to 10 units on parcels

[7:49:11] throughout the city. We provide

[7:49:13] additional metrics in terms

[7:49:14] of how many total additional

[7:49:16] residential units of capacity

[7:49:18] would be added. And I reached

[7:49:20] out to the housing

[7:49:21] accountability chief with hpd

[7:49:23] myself and said point blank if

[7:49:25] the city tries to walk back its

[7:49:26] commitments here, if we don't

[7:49:27] move forward with this program

[7:49:29] or if we try to downscale the

[7:49:30] program below what was

[7:49:31] committed in the housing

[7:49:32] element, would that be grounds

[7:49:34] for decertification? And she

[7:49:35] said quote yes. Should the city

[7:49:37] choose not to implement the

[7:49:37] housing programs it should can

[7:49:39] review the inaction and revoke

[7:49:40] its finding of compliance. So I

[7:49:42] think that the >> potential

[7:49:43] ramifications here we cannot

[7:49:45] pretend as if they are

[7:49:46] imaginary. Finally, since I

[7:49:48] know there were some questions

[7:49:49] about the memo from myself and

[7:49:51] council member committee, I

[7:49:52] want to speak to a couple

[7:49:53] of those items. I think the one

[7:49:55] that we are most excited about

[7:49:56] or I'm most excited about I

[7:49:57] won't speak for my colleague is

[7:49:59] the local density bonus

[7:50:01] program. And I think it's

[7:50:02] actually timely that we are

[7:50:03] hearing this item now because

[7:50:05] we just saw with item 10.2 a

[7:50:07] missing middle housing

[7:50:09] application that we're actually

[7:50:10] leveraging state density bonus

[7:50:12] law and with that application

[7:50:14] we saw that they waived height

[7:50:15] limits, they waived

[7:50:16] requirements around lot

[7:50:17] coverage, they waived setbacks.

[7:50:19] they basically got to just

[7:50:20] ignore all of the local

[7:50:21] development >> standards that

[7:50:23] we as a city set. So the idea

[7:50:25] behind this program is that

[7:50:27] since legally the city cannot

[7:50:29] prevent >> builders from

[7:50:30] pursuing this state density >>

[7:50:31] bonus but what we could do is

[7:50:34] provide an appealing local

[7:50:35] alternative >> density bonus

[7:50:37] program that actually does

[7:50:38] preserve local control. So that

[7:50:40] is the intent of what is

[7:50:41] recommended in our memo. We can

[7:50:43] set up an alternative local

[7:50:45] pathway that they can pursue

[7:50:47] that does require that

[7:50:48] applicants adhere to local

[7:50:49] development standards things

[7:50:51] like building heights setbacks

[7:50:52] and open space requirements.

[7:50:54] and we can use that to provide

[7:50:55] an incentive for builders

[7:50:56] of missing little programs to

[7:50:58] actually make sure that they're

[7:50:59] building missing little

[7:50:59] projects that are a good fit

[7:51:01] for our community. And then

[7:51:03] just speaking again on the

[7:51:06] increased height limits that

[7:51:07] are proposed near downtown

[7:51:08] transit hubs, I'm fairly open

[7:51:10] minded here. I would defer to

[7:51:12] staff in terms of what they

[7:51:13] evaluate as appropriate here.

[7:51:15] we have been primarily trying

[7:51:16] to target the kind of highest

[7:51:18] capacity transit nodes that are

[7:51:20] already in existing denser

[7:51:22] neighborhoods that have kind

[7:51:24] of well connected

[7:51:25] pedestrianized grid networks.

[7:51:27] understanding that some

[7:51:28] of those, you know, peripheral

[7:51:30] downtown transit hubs are close

[7:51:31] to the freeway. Maybe there is

[7:51:33] not a clear walking path to

[7:51:34] actually get to the other side

[7:51:35] of the freeway. So we would

[7:51:37] just recommend that staff come

[7:51:38] back with some recommendations

[7:51:39] around this specific subset

[7:51:41] of downtown downtown transit

[7:51:43] stations that they think would

[7:51:44] be appropriate for this kind

[7:51:45] of increased but still

[7:51:46] transitional height limit

[7:51:48] of 45ft. So with >> oh sorry I

[7:51:51] was just going to say I'm going

[7:51:52] to take those those sound like

[7:51:53] friendly amendments. I want to

[7:51:54] give you and councilor cohen an

[7:51:55] opportunity to maybe dialog and

[7:51:57] see if that gets you. >>

[7:51:58] absolutely. I was going to

[7:51:59] request a friendly amendment

[7:52:00] for the elements that were left

[7:52:02] out of the original motion

[7:52:03] which I believe is item one and

[7:52:06] item four >> and four wasn't

[7:52:09] left out. I put it in but I

[7:52:10] just want to make sure there's

[7:52:11] clarification and I, I guess I

[7:52:12] can ask staff on this one it's

[7:52:14] I mean I don't want to

[7:52:15] wordsmith and try to decide

[7:52:16] what downtown means today but

[7:52:19] you would interpret this to

[7:52:20] mean you would come back with a

[7:52:21] reasonable program that would

[7:52:22] allow some flexibility on where

[7:52:24] the boundaries are, where it

[7:52:25] would apply. That's correct.

[7:52:27] okay. So that's I mean we

[7:52:28] already included that one. The

[7:52:29] other one I just want to ask

[7:52:30] the question so the advantage

[7:52:31] of this is a >> a speed

[7:52:34] question. They could do it

[7:52:35] faster >> than they could with

[7:52:36] the state density bonus or

[7:52:37] what's the well, I guess I just

[7:52:39] was curious about what would

[7:52:40] lead somebody to choose the

[7:52:41] local versus the state density

[7:52:43] bonus. I think a component

[7:52:45] of it could be speed. I think

[7:52:46] it could also be based on what

[7:52:48] other other requirements staff

[7:52:49] would recommend including as

[7:52:51] criteria for pursuing the local

[7:52:53] path. I think we would need

[7:52:55] something if we're going to ask

[7:52:56] developers to kind of waive the

[7:52:58] ability to exceed local design

[7:53:00] standards. So maybe that means

[7:53:02] that we adjust the

[7:53:03] affordability thresholds to tap

[7:53:04] into the density bonus program.

[7:53:06] maybe it means a faster

[7:53:07] guaranteed many ministerial

[7:53:09] permit timeline. I just think

[7:53:10] that it would be valuable to

[7:53:11] have a local alternative so

[7:53:13] that we don't see all of these

[7:53:13] projects just tapping into

[7:53:15] state density bonus law to

[7:53:16] exceed any development

[7:53:17] standards that staff comes up

[7:53:19] with in partnership with our >>

[7:53:20] communities. I think it's an

[7:53:21] intriguing >> idea. Let me just

[7:53:22] ask one question of staff on

[7:53:23] this one. You know, there's a

[7:53:25] lot of stuff being loaded on

[7:53:26] here. There's a lot of other

[7:53:26] stuff being worked on. So just

[7:53:27] what is your feeling about what

[7:53:30] this does to the timeline

[7:53:31] of this or the your your

[7:53:33] ability to to create such a

[7:53:35] program as well also doing all

[7:53:37] the other things that are being

[7:53:38] asked for >> here. So so we

[7:53:41] agree there's a lot

[7:53:42] of opportunity here and I

[7:53:43] actually think you know there's

[7:53:44] a lot of really good work for

[7:53:46] us to do. Obviously would love

[7:53:48] to be able to do it all as

[7:53:49] quickly as possible. So we're

[7:53:51] currently in the process

[7:53:52] of doing that analysis so we

[7:53:54] can come back on october 6th to

[7:53:56] have the conversation. I think

[7:53:58] part of that was waiting for

[7:53:59] this conversation so we could

[7:54:00] see what kind of gets added.

[7:54:02] some of it gets sequenced in

[7:54:04] right and there's a sequential

[7:54:05] aspect. Some of it needs to be

[7:54:06] prioritized and we have to make

[7:54:08] choices of some aspects ahead

[7:54:10] of others. So I think, you

[7:54:12] know, we'll need to hear how

[7:54:14] the conversation goes and then

[7:54:15] come back on october 6th with a

[7:54:17] sort of full analysis. But

[7:54:18] again, I think it would fit

[7:54:20] within that context and and you

[7:54:23] know, it's appropriate for us

[7:54:24] to look at it though. So so >>

[7:54:25] I will accept it with the

[7:54:26] understanding. I think that

[7:54:28] amongst the dozens of things we

[7:54:30] have asked over the years for

[7:54:31] this department to handle, we

[7:54:32] will be prioritizing all

[7:54:33] of those in october and this

[7:54:35] will be part of that

[7:54:35] conversation. So that would be

[7:54:38] yeah, I foley expect that this

[7:54:39] should be prioritized alongside

[7:54:41] everything else on staff's, you

[7:54:42] know, hefty plate. The only

[7:54:44] other thing that we'll note and

[7:54:45] we noted this in the memo as

[7:54:46] well is that another housing

[7:54:47] element program that the city

[7:54:48] did commit to was evaluating

[7:54:50] expanding our at the local

[7:54:51] density >> bonus opportunities.

[7:54:54] so we think that this is

[7:54:54] actually aligned with existing

[7:54:56] work that staff has already

[7:54:56] tentatively committed to for

[7:54:58] 2027 in the housing >> element.

[7:54:59] >> I got to ask this. Sorry I

[7:55:02] have to ask the second or if

[7:55:04] she'll accept this so so you're

[7:55:05] >> accepting it as a friendly

[7:55:07] amendment? I'm concerned about

[7:55:08] the scope that it's adding on

[7:55:10] to staff and I just hate to add

[7:55:14] something to staff and then

[7:55:15] come back on october 2nd six

[7:55:18] and we all say oh yeah, that's

[7:55:19] too much. And now we've taken

[7:55:21] it away. What's your what's

[7:55:23] your. I mean if it says to be

[7:55:26] reviewed as a priority in

[7:55:28] october 6th I'm happy with

[7:55:29] that. >> yeah, I think that

[7:55:31] makes sense to us. Again, we

[7:55:33] have to there's a let me pause

[7:55:36] for a second. There's obviously

[7:55:38] a finite capacity into how much

[7:55:40] work we can get done. You know,

[7:55:42] certainly within the next six

[7:55:43] months we have plans and our

[7:55:44] work plan across the next 3 to

[7:55:46] 5 years. You know, really what

[7:55:49] we're looking at is is not to

[7:55:50] sort of say none of this is

[7:55:52] good work. It's about how does

[7:55:53] it sequence and how does it fit

[7:55:55] together. And that's really the

[7:55:56] priority conversation that

[7:55:57] we'll be having in october.

[7:55:59] it's not to say hey, throw all

[7:56:01] of this stuff out. We don't

[7:56:02] want to do it anymore. It's

[7:56:03] about hey, we really need to do

[7:56:04] this work up front. So you

[7:56:06] know, probably highest priority

[7:56:09] for us is the work that we will

[7:56:10] sort of get out of this

[7:56:11] conversation to move forward

[7:56:13] those programs in the existing

[7:56:14] housing element and prepare us

[7:56:16] for the next housing element as

[7:56:17] well as anything that touches

[7:56:19] existing state laws that we're

[7:56:20] trying to implement. So we

[7:56:21] would fit it in within that

[7:56:23] context and then look at the

[7:56:24] rest of you know, what's on the

[7:56:25] plate to make a best guess

[7:56:28] at how that then sequences

[7:56:29] after. >> oh okay. All except

[7:56:32] it in in those terms. But it's

[7:56:36] very complicated and for for

[7:56:39] me to understand it I'm having

[7:56:41] a hard time getting my head

[7:56:43] around what the implications

[7:56:45] are, what are the unintended

[7:56:46] unintended consequences of it

[7:56:48] so I think by october 6th when

[7:56:51] it comes back we'll be able to

[7:56:53] have more of a discussion about

[7:56:54] unintended consequences of it.

[7:56:56] but but for now I'll accept it

[7:56:58] as a friendly amendment. Okay.

[7:57:00] and councilor >> richards, you

[7:57:02] had the floor. Was that your

[7:57:03] last your last piece? Okay,

[7:57:04] great. So I'm going to turn now

[7:57:05] to thank you and I'll turn to

[7:57:07] councilmember condell us. Thank

[7:57:10] >> you, mayor. First of all,

[7:57:12] thank you to chris and your

[7:57:13] staff for the work today and

[7:57:15] also for the presentation this

[7:57:17] evening as as well as to

[7:57:18] my brown art group for >> their

[7:57:20] conversation and engagement and

[7:57:22] policy debate that we had the

[7:57:24] last couple of weeks. And you

[7:57:26] know, I also >> want to take a

[7:57:27] brief moment to folks who are

[7:57:29] still >> here or listening on

[7:57:30] line who came out and spoke on

[7:57:33] this item. You know this is a

[7:57:35] major moment for policymaking

[7:57:38] in our city and our impacts and

[7:57:40] our community's voice is

[7:57:41] important in helping us

[7:57:42] understand the impact of our

[7:57:43] decisions. And you know, there

[7:57:45] are there are a few areas that

[7:57:46] I want to speak to and the

[7:57:48] first is yes, state law has

[7:57:52] already taken a lot of land use

[7:57:54] authority from cities. However,

[7:57:57] there is a difference to what

[7:57:59] could be done to what is being

[7:58:01] proposed as someone who earlier

[7:58:03] noted I don't know if they're

[7:58:04] still here there appears that

[7:58:06] we're quote unquote overdoing

[7:58:07] it. And you know, I'm going to

[7:58:09] be blunt. I believe that we're

[7:58:11] being asked to essentially take

[7:58:13] a shortcut a one size fits all

[7:58:16] approach that treats the entire

[7:58:18] city as if every neighborhood

[7:58:20] is the same not not to mention

[7:58:22] proposed projects under this

[7:58:23] program are by right >> I make

[7:58:26] little to no public comment.

[7:58:28] again from the staff

[7:58:29] recommendation raising the

[7:58:31] density limit from eight units

[7:58:32] per acre to 32 units per acre

[7:58:35] across roughly 85% of our

[7:58:37] of our residential >> land. You

[7:58:39] know it's not thoughtful enough

[7:58:41] this blanket this blanketing

[7:58:44] of the city with a single

[7:58:45] number and calling it progress.

[7:58:48] and while yes it's it's under

[7:58:50] state law developers can

[7:58:52] already get these densities

[7:58:53] it's not our policy it's state

[7:58:55] law and so san jose is not

[7:58:57] uniform. San jose has different

[7:59:00] neighborhoods that sit near

[7:59:01] frequent transit walkable

[7:59:03] commercial corridors, existing

[7:59:05] infrastructure, other

[7:59:07] neighborhoods not so much. And

[7:59:09] by choosing this blanket

[7:59:11] approach I think we avoid the

[7:59:12] harder work of identifying

[7:59:14] which areas we can genuinely

[7:59:16] support more housing sequencing

[7:59:18] the transit and infrastructure

[7:59:20] investments and writing

[7:59:22] standards that respect

[7:59:23] different neighborhoods context

[7:59:25] things like egress, ingress,

[7:59:28] public safety response times,

[7:59:30] parking minimums and

[7:59:31] development standards. You

[7:59:33] know, instead of doing the the

[7:59:35] careful analysis, I think the

[7:59:36] proposal simply multiplies the

[7:59:38] density number of by four and

[7:59:39] applies it citywide. You know,

[7:59:42] I want to be clear that, you >>

[7:59:44] know, this is not an opposition

[7:59:45] to housing as several folks

[7:59:47] have said that it's opposition

[7:59:48] to what appears to be careless

[7:59:51] housing policy and the

[7:59:53] unintended consequences that

[7:59:54] may create. And you know, I

[7:59:56] think we deserve a thoughtful

[7:59:58] approach that respects the

[7:59:59] differences between our

[8:00:00] neighborhoods and recognizes

[8:00:02] that once density grants a

[8:00:03] rights are granted, they're

[8:00:05] extremely we can't we can't

[8:00:07] take it back. We know the state

[8:00:08] law doesn't let us down so and

[8:00:10] so you know, when this comes

[8:00:12] back to us next december, our

[8:00:15] options are going to be limited

[8:00:16] based on the alternatives and

[8:00:18] the direction we provide staff

[8:00:19] today. So that's what makes

[8:00:21] this this conversation that

[8:00:22] much more vital. You know, I

[8:00:25] think there's there's there's

[8:00:26] an important point that I want

[8:00:27] to quickly touch on is you

[8:00:29] know, there's a power dynamic

[8:00:31] with with cd that it

[8:00:32] essentially forces our hand to

[8:00:34] make decisions you know that

[8:00:36] that are you know can perceived

[8:00:39] to be against our residents and

[8:00:41] the will of our residents the

[8:00:42] people who for us on the dais

[8:00:44] who voted us in. And so you

[8:00:46] know I don't I don't buy this I

[8:00:47] believe we have the right to

[8:00:49] implement a program as we see

[8:00:51] fit. And so when it comes to

[8:00:53] housing affordability and

[8:00:54] spurring development, I've seen

[8:00:56] our council take a balanced

[8:00:57] approach to not only taking

[8:01:00] every option available to us to

[8:01:02] make a difference but doing so

[8:01:04] in a way that doesn't

[8:01:05] compromise our city's fiscal

[8:01:07] sustainability and the quality

[8:01:08] of life for our residents. You

[8:01:09] know, in march 2025 this

[8:01:11] council unanimously adopted

[8:01:14] direction to the administration

[8:01:16] to explore densify outside

[8:01:18] of our growth areas where the

[8:01:19] market dictated excluding

[8:01:22] excluding high vmt >> areas,

[8:01:24] having empty areas have been

[8:01:25] identified as part of our city

[8:01:27] that lack reliable transit

[8:01:29] options with limited routes for

[8:01:31] for again getting in and out

[8:01:32] of it out of those areas we

[8:01:34] have deemed these areas read on

[8:01:35] a map for a reason and again a

[8:01:39] couple of months later in june

[8:01:40] 2025 staff returned with the

[8:01:42] memo mirroring the language

[8:01:44] that was proposed in the scope

[8:01:45] of work for the general plan

[8:01:46] four year review and I quote

[8:01:49] staff will include in the

[8:01:50] analysis city council direction

[8:01:52] from the march budget message

[8:01:54] to expand growth areas to where

[8:01:55] there is current market demand

[8:01:56] for housing and employment uses

[8:01:58] except in areas with a medical

[8:02:00] >> vmt impacts this direction

[8:02:04] was approved unanimously by

[8:02:06] this council and yet the

[8:02:08] recommendations before us takes

[8:02:10] us to a different path applying

[8:02:12] uniform density across the city

[8:02:15] than the more targeted approach

[8:02:17] and I understand the concerns

[8:02:18] as explained by staff. I get it

[8:02:20] but it's very disheartening to

[8:02:23] to be here and not have this

[8:02:26] flag or not have the concerns

[8:02:28] of potential decertification as

[8:02:30] a threat beforehand >> and or

[8:02:33] you know, at the 11th hour

[8:02:35] getting a phone call from aicd

[8:02:37] essentially saying hey, you're

[8:02:39] going to be decertified and

[8:02:42] yes, it's not overnight and

[8:02:43] yes, it's a series of lack

[8:02:45] of implementation of what we

[8:02:47] said we were going to do

[8:02:48] through the through the housing

[8:02:49] element. But it just does not

[8:02:52] sit well with me. And you know,

[8:02:53] I appreciate

[8:02:55] councilmember cohen's motion

[8:02:58] and the ability to try to get

[8:02:59] something but but I just wanted

[8:03:02] to express my frustration and I

[8:03:05] in the spirit of of

[8:03:08] collaboration I may offer up a

[8:03:09] few more comments but that's

[8:03:11] that's I look forward to

[8:03:13] hearing from the rest of my

[8:03:14] colleagues before I do so >>

[8:03:15] thanks. Thanks.

[8:03:17] councilmember >>. >> all right.

[8:03:22] let's go to

[8:03:24] councilmember ortiz. Thank you,

[8:03:27] mayor. I want to start by

[8:03:29] thanking city staff the

[8:03:30] planning commission for all

[8:03:32] your work that has gone into

[8:03:34] this four year review. I >>

[8:03:36] want to begin just with one

[8:03:38] of the additions in our memo

[8:03:39] that I believe is particularly

[8:03:40] important for serious >> about

[8:03:42] meeting our housing goals. Then

[8:03:44] we also need to look at our own

[8:03:45] processes and identify where we

[8:03:47] may be creating unnecessary

[8:03:49] barriers or delays for

[8:03:50] projects. Right now applicants

[8:03:53] >> have only one opportunity

[8:03:54] each year to advance a general

[8:03:56] plan amendment. If they miss

[8:03:57] that window >> it can mean

[8:03:59] waiting another year while

[8:04:01] continuing to carry land

[8:04:02] financing and pre-development

[8:04:03] >> costs for some projects that

[8:04:06] additional >> time and expense

[8:04:08] can make the difference between

[8:04:09] whether a viable project moves

[8:04:11] forward or whether it doesn't.

[8:04:14] our recommendation which >> was

[8:04:15] accepted into

[8:04:18] councilmember collins motion

[8:04:20] creates an >> additional

[8:04:21] general plan amendment cycle

[8:04:22] for residential, commercial and

[8:04:24] public quasi public sites

[8:04:26] giving us another opportunity

[8:04:27] to move projects forward

[8:04:29] without changing any of the

[8:04:30] underlying review or approval

[8:04:32] requirements. I also want to

[8:04:35] say even though it's not really

[8:04:37] my district, I do support the

[8:04:38] vmt and vmt based protections

[8:04:41] in our memo >> given sb 70 >>

[8:04:46] nine and sb nine. Majority

[8:04:48] of my district >> is already on

[8:04:50] the road to being >> extremely

[8:04:52] dense so this vote doesn't

[8:04:53] really impact my area that

[8:04:55] much. But I think sometimes we

[8:04:58] get individuals who get really

[8:05:00] >> bogged into dogmatic policy.

[8:05:03] I call them policy wonks and

[8:05:05] things are good on paper.

[8:05:07] however, when we actually move

[8:05:08] forward with development they

[8:05:10] >> don't actually make sense. I

[8:05:11] think the faa in downtown

[8:05:13] san jose was a good example.

[8:05:14] people do not want housing

[8:05:16] without parking and especially

[8:05:18] >> in areas >> like east

[8:05:22] san jose where they're spread

[8:05:23] out and we don't have the best

[8:05:26] transportation system already

[8:05:27] developed. It makes things

[8:05:29] difficult especially for

[8:05:30] working >> class people who

[8:05:31] rely on their cars. And so

[8:05:35] while >> you know, the the

[8:05:37] addition of potential parking

[8:05:40] in the overall motion was

[8:05:42] included, it won't necessarily

[8:05:45] impact my district given >> you

[8:05:47] know, the level

[8:05:48] of transportation that exists

[8:05:49] >> there. I think it's good

[8:05:51] because as we look at our city

[8:05:53] sprawling out and expanding,

[8:05:56] these developments are going to

[8:05:57] need parking because people >>

[8:05:59] want in city of san jose people

[8:06:01] will not go into apartments >>

[8:06:04] or condos that don't provide

[8:06:06] spaces for their cars. This

[8:06:07] isn't new york and it's not

[8:06:09] chicago. And so we need to make

[8:06:10] sure that as we make our land

[8:06:12] use decisions we reflect that.

[8:06:14] I >> understand that we do need

[8:06:15] to create additional housing

[8:06:16] capacity citywide but I do

[8:06:19] struggle with the idea that on

[8:06:20] one hand we recognize that

[8:06:21] higher densities make the most

[8:06:22] sense in areas with strong

[8:06:24] transit infrastructure and good

[8:06:26] access to jobs and services

[8:06:28] while on the other hand we

[8:06:29] could apply essentially the

[8:06:30] same density increases to

[8:06:31] neighborhoods where residents

[8:06:33] have fewer transportation

[8:06:34] options, experience more

[8:06:35] traffic and may already have to

[8:06:37] drive further to >> meet their

[8:06:39] everyday needs. We can

[8:06:41] reconcile these two goals and

[8:06:42] make sure we're thinking about

[8:06:43] the infrastructure needed to

[8:06:45] support density where we're

[8:06:46] actually creating it. I'm >>

[8:06:48] also generally supportive

[8:06:49] of providing more flexibility

[8:06:50] in our public quasi public

[8:06:51] lands. There's a balance to

[8:06:53] strike between preserving these

[8:06:54] important community spaces and

[8:06:56] giving schools faith

[8:06:57] institutions and other property

[8:06:59] owners more opportunities for

[8:07:01] housing, child care, recreation

[8:07:04] and community serving uses. And

[8:07:06] with >> that, I do have a

[8:07:07] couple questions for staff.

[8:07:10] first, I'd like to better

[8:07:11] understand how long we have >>

[8:07:12] to decide on density and

[8:07:14] whether we'll have more

[8:07:15] definitive guidance on exactly

[8:07:17] how high our dwelling units per

[8:07:19] acre needs to be. How soon do

[8:07:21] we need to make a final

[8:07:22] decision on residential

[8:07:24] neighborhood density to remain

[8:07:25] compliant with the housing

[8:07:27] element? >> thanks

[8:07:30] councilmember. So this was

[8:07:32] mentioned by

[8:07:33] councilmember tordillos as

[8:07:34] well. There are some both

[8:07:36] timeline and metrics associated

[8:07:38] with the program. So there are

[8:07:40] specific milestones we're

[8:07:41] supposed to meet. And so we're

[8:07:44] already a little bit behind

[8:07:46] some of those milestones in

[8:07:47] terms of when we would have

[8:07:48] these land use decisions done.

[8:07:50] so I think as long as we're

[8:07:51] continuing to show progress and

[8:07:53] show work that we're going

[8:07:54] forward with these things, you

[8:07:56] know, we can we can stay

[8:07:57] compliant. But if we continue

[8:07:59] to delay, that's when we would

[8:08:01] get into a situation where they

[8:08:03] may look unfavorably on us. So

[8:08:05] there's not a hard deadline but

[8:08:07] there are deadlines that we've

[8:08:08] committed to that we've not

[8:08:10] foley kept up with so far. So

[8:08:12] not hard deadlines. So >> when

[8:08:15] you give me an example >> sorry

[8:08:17] there are specific deadlines in

[8:08:18] terms of months of when we

[8:08:19] would make decisions in the

[8:08:21] housing element under p 35 it

[8:08:23] has a specific point and date I

[8:08:25] believe 26th december of 2026

[8:08:30] was when the first milestone is

[8:08:32] technically >> we do have some

[8:08:33] months. Yeah and then there's

[8:08:38] october of 2026 was when we

[8:08:40] were supposed to we're supposed

[8:08:41] to have design standards

[8:08:42] approved and under our current

[8:08:44] timeline we're suggesting

[8:08:45] december of 27 when we'd have

[8:08:47] those approved. So we're

[8:08:48] already a little bit behind and

[8:08:50] so that's why you know,

[8:08:51] continued to make progress is

[8:08:52] important and have some

[8:08:53] decisions made in terms of what

[8:08:55] direction we're but in reality

[8:08:57] we wouldn't be the only city

[8:08:58] behind. There's plenty

[8:08:59] of cities that aren't

[8:09:00] necessarily in good standing

[8:09:01] with hpd. So it's important as

[8:09:05] chris was was mentioning is

[8:09:06] that we continue to show

[8:09:07] progress on those programs.

[8:09:09] those are the types of things

[8:09:10] that they are enforcing on in

[8:09:11] terms of what commitments we

[8:09:13] made in terms of decisions and

[8:09:14] policy programs. You know, I

[8:09:17] think where where there are

[8:09:18] things outside of our control

[8:09:20] with the actual housing

[8:09:21] production under the arena

[8:09:22] that's not necessarily where

[8:09:24] they're choosing to enforce

[8:09:25] because they understand that,

[8:09:26] you know, those are things

[8:09:28] outside of our control but

[8:09:29] where we can implement programs

[8:09:31] and are not making progress,

[8:09:32] that's where we could really,

[8:09:34] you know, run into an issue and

[8:09:36] where they're really monitoring

[8:09:37] us closely. Okay. >> so again,

[8:09:40] I'd like to understand what our

[8:09:41] neighboring cities are doing. I

[8:09:42] understand berkeley is doing I

[8:09:43] think it was 70 but what is

[8:09:46] sunnyvale doing? What is

[8:09:47] cupertino doing? What are

[8:09:48] cities doing in santa clara

[8:09:50] county? I mean the city of san

[8:09:51] jose is not going to solve the

[8:09:53] housing crisis for the county

[8:09:55] or for northern california. So

[8:09:57] and we shouldn't be expected to

[8:09:58] do so. And so what are other

[8:10:00] cities doing? Are other cities

[8:10:02] are already taking these votes

[8:10:03] on how dense or are we rushing?

[8:10:06] we don't need to be the first

[8:10:06] city to vote on this >>

[8:10:19] . So >> I can't I don't I can't

[8:10:23] speak to specific smaller

[8:10:25] cities in santa clara county in

[8:10:26] terms of this type of missing

[8:10:28] middle programs. We'd have to

[8:10:30] look at their housing elements

[8:10:31] more closely. I know in terms

[8:10:33] of the larger cities in the bay

[8:10:35] area and elsewhere in the

[8:10:36] state. These are programs that

[8:10:38] are typical in their housing

[8:10:40] elements. We were just talking

[8:10:42] to oakland, the city of oakland

[8:10:45] the other day and they also

[8:10:46] have a similar program and are

[8:10:47] currently working on general

[8:10:48] plan updates and looking

[8:10:50] at increased density in their

[8:10:51] single-family so they're so

[8:10:53] they're looking >> at it.

[8:10:55] they're not voting on it yet.

[8:10:56] how far away I mean that's what

[8:10:57] I'm trying to understand are we

[8:10:58] like the first city in

[8:11:00] santa clara county doing this

[8:11:01] or why can't we have a

[8:11:02] conversation and stop and

[8:11:03] realize, you know, actually

[8:11:05] where we're at? So they'll be

[8:11:07] bringing forward those changes

[8:11:08] in the coming months to their

[8:11:09] city council in months. Okay.

[8:11:11] so then we are we are moving

[8:11:13] at a faster rate. So how are we

[8:11:16] more susceptible to being

[8:11:17] referred other than we

[8:11:18] got council members calling

[8:11:19] oecd on us? Other than that,

[8:11:22] how are we more susceptible >>

[8:11:23] to hd and us being in

[8:11:25] non-compliant? So in comparison

[8:11:27] to these other municipalities

[8:11:29] obviously you know wouldn't

[8:11:30] want to speak too much for

[8:11:32] oecd. But what I will say

[8:11:33] council members is when you

[8:11:34] take the statewide housing

[8:11:36] element program, the vast

[8:11:37] majority of units added through

[8:11:39] all of the housing elements

[8:11:40] reside in the largest cities in

[8:11:42] the state. Right. And as such

[8:11:43] we've seen, you know,

[8:11:45] noncompliance letters or

[8:11:47] actions taken against, you

[8:11:49] know, san diego with their adu

[8:11:50] law. You know, there's been

[8:11:51] interventions around l.a on

[8:11:53] some of their permitting

[8:11:54] questions and their

[8:11:54] applications. San francisco had

[8:11:56] an unprecedented intervention

[8:11:58] based on some of their

[8:11:59] processes. So we do draw more

[8:12:02] attention by nature that we are

[8:12:03] the third largest city in the

[8:12:04] state and we have you know a

[8:12:06] considerable amount

[8:12:08] of statewide capacity resides

[8:12:09] in the big cities. >> what I

[8:12:12] still would have liked to have

[8:12:13] as we took this vote to get an

[8:12:14] understanding of what our our

[8:12:16] neighboring cities would have

[8:12:17] done, I think that's important

[8:12:18] for us as a council to do so

[8:12:21] especially as we are thinking

[8:12:22] about votes that may change the

[8:12:24] essentially who our city is the

[8:12:27] culture of our city. You know I

[8:12:29] am a renter. I have lived in

[8:12:31] apartments. You know, I know

[8:12:33] what that's like. You know,

[8:12:34] I've I grew up in a single

[8:12:35] family home but in my district

[8:12:37] people already living like

[8:12:38] this. I want to be brutally

[8:12:38] honest with everybody. I grew

[8:12:40] up in a single family home.

[8:12:41] there was three families that

[8:12:43] lived there. And here's

[8:12:44] san jose. We have no parking

[8:12:45] because that's that's the

[8:12:47] reality. So at the end of the

[8:12:48] day the vote today doesn't

[8:12:49] impact my district. I just want

[8:12:51] to make sure that if we're

[8:12:52] taking an important >> vote

[8:12:53] like this, we're doing so with

[8:12:55] all >> the information we need

[8:12:57] and crossing our t's and dot in

[8:12:59] our eyes and I just I feel like

[8:13:01] we are rushing and I feel like

[8:13:02] there's a there is a heightened

[8:13:05] >> level of haziness that's

[8:13:09] that's been pushed on this

[8:13:10] council and I don't I don't

[8:13:12] appreciate that I don't I don't

[8:13:13] feel I feel like you know part

[8:13:15] of this council is forcing the

[8:13:16] other part of the council to

[8:13:17] make this well thank you >>

[8:13:24] okay let's let's keep going and

[8:13:28] we will turn now to council

[8:13:29] member committee. Thank you so

[8:13:35] much. I want to thank all

[8:13:38] of the people who came out to

[8:13:40] give us your thoughts. We've

[8:13:41] had a lot of emails, a lot

[8:13:44] of information, a lot

[8:13:45] of letters. There's been quite

[8:13:47] a bit of engagement. So thank

[8:13:49] you so much. I want to thank >>

[8:13:52] the >> the department for all

[8:13:55] of the work that you've done. I

[8:13:57] especially want to thank jared

[8:13:59] ferguson who you know we've

[8:14:01] been sort of having him on

[8:14:02] speed dial and director burton

[8:14:05] as well, you know, in terms

[8:14:07] of answering questions and

[8:14:08] doing a lot of work on this. So

[8:14:11] thank you very much. I want to

[8:14:12] thank my colleagues. I think

[8:14:14] you we all worked really hard

[8:14:16] on our memos and tried to move

[8:14:18] something that was manageable

[8:14:21] and to move forward in our >>

[8:14:23] process here now I want to talk

[8:14:26] about a little bit on the you

[8:14:28] know, what are we doing here

[8:14:29] today >> and what it is and

[8:14:31] what it isn't because I've

[8:14:32] heard a lot of >> different

[8:14:35] understandings of of what we

[8:14:37] are today doing. We aren't

[8:14:40] rezoning anything. We aren't

[8:14:43] adopting any changes in the

[8:14:45] general plan or making an

[8:14:46] amendment. Nobody will be able

[8:14:48] to leave here today or tomorrow

[8:14:50] and apply for to build anything

[8:14:52] under any of the land use

[8:14:53] policies that we are discussing

[8:14:56] so this is to >> give

[8:14:58] direction. We're discussing the

[8:15:00] parameters of future policy. So

[8:15:02] this is part of a very long

[8:15:04] process and there was a slide

[8:15:07] today that shows where we are

[8:15:09] in that process. You know it's

[8:15:14] going to be for the adoption

[8:15:15] and defining the outer

[8:15:16] boundaries of environmental

[8:15:18] study so that whatever >> the

[8:15:21] whatever action the >> council

[8:15:23] ultimately takes we have a

[8:15:26] sufficient study of what those

[8:15:28] impacts are. The environmental

[8:15:30] impact is like tailoring a

[8:15:32] garment. You could always

[8:15:33] reduce it and remove fabric but

[8:15:35] you can't add to it. Similarly

[8:15:38] we can't enact regulations

[8:15:41] which are whose impacts we

[8:15:42] haven't studied >> so this will

[8:15:45] give sort >> of the the

[8:15:47] landscape of what the body

[8:15:50] of study >> is going to be so

[8:15:51] that when we do get the

[8:15:53] information we will make an

[8:15:55] informed decision on what those

[8:15:57] impacts >> are. There will be

[8:15:59] additional points in time for

[8:16:01] the council and the public to

[8:16:02] further define each of these

[8:16:04] policies as we move forward to

[8:16:07] eventually do a general plan

[8:16:09] amendment at the end of 2020

[8:16:11] for 27 excuse me and for the

[8:16:15] adoption and implementation

[8:16:17] of ordinances and policy. So

[8:16:19] today is a very important day.

[8:16:22] it's a very key check in

[8:16:25] between the beginning of this

[8:16:27] discussion and what >> will

[8:16:28] happen locally in in in the

[8:16:31] future. >> so you know, I

[8:16:34] wanted to say a little bit

[8:16:35] about the density bonus law and

[8:16:40] I'm going to kind of simplify

[8:16:42] >> the you know what we were

[8:16:45] considering in point one on our

[8:16:48] memo with council member toward

[8:16:50] dios. What it really is is that

[8:16:53] >> at this point in time an

[8:16:55] applicant could get in some

[8:16:57] of the larger lots up to five

[8:16:59] units. Right. And if they have

[8:17:02] these five units on an existing

[8:17:03] parcel they could did restrict

[8:17:05] one and use the state's density

[8:17:08] bonus >> law to toss out all

[8:17:10] of the height all of the

[8:17:11] setback and other standards are

[8:17:14] item number one really proposes

[8:17:16] a pathway >> that should be

[8:17:18] preferable to state law so that

[8:17:20] we would have local control

[8:17:22] right? So we want to make it

[8:17:24] more desirable. So the idea is

[8:17:26] really to explore >> our own

[8:17:30] density bonus law instead

[8:17:32] of having them trigger once you

[8:17:34] get the five you know I mean we

[8:17:37] had an example today of more

[8:17:38] than five so you know, I think

[8:17:41] that that is certainly worth

[8:17:43] considering and I'm glad that

[8:17:45] it was made a part of the >>

[8:17:47] friendly amendment. I just

[8:17:48] wanted to clarify >> to make

[8:17:49] sure that councilmember cohen

[8:17:52] you had added item number two

[8:17:55] to develop written health and

[8:17:56] safety standards on projects.

[8:17:59] so >> that was that was

[8:18:01] included. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[8:18:02] okay. Okay. I just wanted to

[8:18:04] confirm that >> and explore.

[8:18:08] yes, yes >> that's fine. That's

[8:18:10] fine. And you know I do

[8:18:13] appreciate that many of the

[8:18:16] residents mentioned the

[8:18:19] fundamental changes to the

[8:18:20] quality of life of our american

[8:18:22] dream >> and I understand that

[8:18:26] you know, I too worked very,

[8:18:28] very hard, struggled very, very

[8:18:32] much to be able to afford a

[8:18:33] single family home. I know how

[8:18:36] it changes. It does change the

[8:18:37] character >> but the the what

[8:18:41] we're trying to do today is

[8:18:43] really to study what is going

[8:18:46] to happen >> in those areas. So

[8:18:49] I look forward to the resulting

[8:18:53] information that will come to

[8:18:54] us and look forward to being

[8:18:59] able to continue the

[8:19:00] conversation. Thanks

[8:19:04] councilmember. Maybe just to

[8:19:05] quickly combine the points from

[8:19:07] councilmembers ortiz and

[8:19:08] committee back to back there in

[8:19:11] order to not rush to

[8:19:12] prematurely close the door and

[8:19:14] limit our optionality as

[8:19:16] councilmember ortiz conveyed I

[8:19:19] think councilor akamai's point

[8:19:20] that we're setting a direction

[8:19:21] for staff study is important. I

[8:19:23] think councilor candles and

[8:19:24] others have all pointed to

[8:19:25] this. I think the question

[8:19:27] right now that we have to

[8:19:28] settle on today is what's

[8:19:30] within the scope of what staff

[8:19:32] is going to go study. It's not

[8:19:33] a final decision but leaving it

[8:19:35] out tonight basically precludes

[8:19:37] us. It's not guaranteed we

[8:19:40] could all decide to pull the

[8:19:41] handbrake and add something in

[8:19:42] but it gets a lot harder to add

[8:19:44] new concepts later and it's not

[8:19:45] fair to staff and it puts us

[8:19:46] off track. So tonight is a

[8:19:48] night to be and that's why I

[8:19:49] appreciate we've got three

[8:19:51] different memos, a lot

[8:19:52] of different recs. I think

[8:19:53] councilor condon an admirable

[8:19:55] job of trying to put as many

[8:19:56] pieces in we're not done. I

[8:19:58] still see a lot of hands but

[8:20:00] lest anyone think that we are

[8:20:02] rushing to a conclusion I would

[8:20:04] say read the memos from all the

[8:20:06] council members which are

[8:20:07] adding a lot of scope to what

[8:20:08] staff is studying for the very

[8:20:10] point that we don't want to

[8:20:11] settle or or zero in today on

[8:20:13] one answer we're giving a lot

[8:20:15] of optionality and a range

[8:20:17] intentionally here and there

[8:20:18] may be more added as we go on

[8:20:20] though I know we have some

[8:20:21] limits to chris's team's

[8:20:22] capacity. All right. Let

[8:20:24] me turn now to

[8:20:25] councilmember campos. Thank

[8:20:29] you, mayor. I want to begin by

[8:20:32] appreciating the members of our

[8:20:34] community who have participated

[8:20:36] in the general plan review

[8:20:37] process for the past year for

[8:20:40] those who have shared their

[8:20:41] diverse opinions here today, I

[8:20:44] thank you. I am also grateful

[8:20:46] to the planning commissioners

[8:20:47] who have spent many hours

[8:20:49] during the general plan task

[8:20:51] force meetings listening

[8:20:52] carefully to public input and

[8:20:54] putting together thoughtful

[8:20:55] recommendations for council and

[8:20:57] of course I want to thank

[8:20:58] planning staff for their

[8:20:59] significant and difficult work

[8:21:02] to help the city meet the

[8:21:04] housing needs of our community

[8:21:05] and comply with complex and

[8:21:07] challenging state mandates.

[8:21:09] finally, I want to thank

[8:21:10] my colleagues in the general

[8:21:11] plan brown act group that I've

[8:21:13] been working with and in the

[8:21:14] spirit of compromise we have

[8:21:16] prepared prudent

[8:21:17] recommendations which I'll

[8:21:19] speak to briefly. None of us on

[8:21:22] council are oblivious to the

[8:21:24] public comments that we've

[8:21:25] received in our inbox that

[8:21:26] we've heard tonight. Nor are we

[8:21:29] ignorant about the housing

[8:21:30] crisis and its impacts on

[8:21:32] hundreds of thousands of our

[8:21:33] neighbors. But the hard truth

[8:21:35] is that our obligation to

[8:21:36] comply with state law is real.

[8:21:39] and as we've heard there are

[8:21:40] severe consequences if we do

[8:21:42] not make that good faith effort

[8:21:44] to meet state mandates. Each

[8:21:46] side has provided clear

[8:21:47] guidance to our staff about

[8:21:49] their expectations around the

[8:21:50] housing element and if we do

[8:21:52] not implement housing element

[8:21:54] program p 35 which allows small

[8:21:56] multifamily housing citywide

[8:21:59] and if our housing element is

[8:22:00] decertified we risk loss

[8:22:03] of local control in return

[8:22:05] of the builders remedy and loss

[8:22:07] of eligibility for hundreds

[8:22:09] of millions of dollars in state

[8:22:10] grants for transportation

[8:22:12] infrastructure and affordable

[8:22:14] housing. But that's not the

[8:22:16] only reason that we on council

[8:22:18] have to make these tough

[8:22:19] decisions. And I want to share

[8:22:21] a personal story of an

[8:22:23] experience that I had yesterday

[8:22:25] that left me reflecting on the

[8:22:27] vote before us today because

[8:22:29] yesterday at southside

[8:22:30] community center we hosted a

[8:22:32] wildfire wildfire preparedness

[8:22:34] town hall and on my way in I

[8:22:36] noticed a young man who was

[8:22:38] arriving with a suitcase but

[8:22:40] instead of walking inside the

[8:22:41] building he stayed outside

[8:22:43] sitting on a bench in our past.

[8:22:45] and as I walked back to my car

[8:22:47] I noticed he was still sitting

[8:22:48] on that bench. I went home and

[8:22:51] I continued thinking about this

[8:22:53] person who was about my age who

[8:22:55] had no safe home to spend their

[8:22:57] night who most likely spent the

[8:22:59] evening outside because that's

[8:23:02] the reality that we are facing

[8:23:04] where too many older adults are

[8:23:06] families with children and

[8:23:08] youth aging out of foster >>

[8:23:09] care are at risk

[8:23:11] of homelessness in our city or

[8:23:14] they're already experiencing

[8:23:15] this and as a city as a

[8:23:18] council. But most importantly

[8:23:20] as a community I hope that we

[8:23:22] can reset our north star and

[8:23:24] framing for this general plan

[8:23:26] conversation because we have

[8:23:28] not built enough housing for

[8:23:29] decades costs have increased so

[8:23:32] much that the cost that most

[8:23:34] of the housing in san jose is

[8:23:36] not affordable to hundreds

[8:23:38] of thousands of people who

[8:23:40] struggle every single day to

[8:23:43] make rent or people like me who

[8:23:46] feel like they will never be

[8:23:47] able to buy a house in their

[8:23:49] hometown. I'm 32 and I live

[8:23:52] at home with my parents. This

[8:23:54] is why I'm proud to have worked

[8:23:56] with my colleagues to find ways

[8:23:58] to provide more affordable and

[8:24:00] accessible housing in

[8:24:02] my district district to the

[8:24:04] southside community center is

[8:24:05] what I want to speak to as an

[8:24:07] opportunity for us to explore

[8:24:08] public private partnership that

[8:24:10] would bring new housing

[8:24:12] including affordable homes

[8:24:14] along with a new community

[8:24:15] center by proactively amending

[8:24:18] the general plan, the city can

[8:24:19] subsequently go through an

[8:24:21] extensive public process to

[8:24:23] identify a development partner,

[8:24:24] design a new community center

[8:24:26] and public amenities and

[8:24:27] provide much needed community

[8:24:30] facilities and housing. And as

[8:24:32] the property owner the city

[8:24:33] would retain all land use and

[8:24:35] planning discretion on the

[8:24:37] southside community center

[8:24:39] piece that is included on the

[8:24:42] motion on the floor council

[8:24:44] members command tordillos

[8:24:45] remind us in their memo that

[8:24:47] this action today is not the

[8:24:48] final approval of any changes.

[8:24:50] it is the framework for

[8:24:52] necessary environmental review

[8:24:54] and there will be many more

[8:24:56] opportunities as we've heard

[8:24:57] for the community to provide

[8:24:58] input on development standards

[8:25:00] and implementation. So I look

[8:25:02] forward to supporting the

[8:25:03] motion and continuing the

[8:25:05] conversation over the next

[8:25:07] year. Thank you, council

[8:25:11] members. Let me turn now to

[8:25:12] vice mayor. Thank you. I was

[8:25:17] debating whether to say

[8:25:18] anything because it's been said

[8:25:21] by many of my colleagues and

[8:25:22] much more eloquently than I can

[8:25:26] say it. But first I want to

[8:25:27] thank the staff for their

[8:25:29] presentation and and

[8:25:31] particularly ruth and jared for

[8:25:34] presenting at the joint town

[8:25:36] hall we had with the two and

[8:25:38] ten last was it last week but

[8:25:42] but thank you for that. I did

[8:25:45] sit in on the final planning

[8:25:48] commission meeting where the

[8:25:50] planning commission voted to

[8:25:51] move this forward and I found

[8:25:54] it a very interesting but

[8:25:56] confusing and complicated

[8:25:58] conversation. This is not an

[8:26:01] easy topic and I come from a

[8:26:03] real estate world so to to

[8:26:07] go through all of the

[8:26:08] recommendations to listen to

[8:26:10] the planning commission and I

[8:26:11] know there are some planning

[8:26:12] commissioners in the room thank

[8:26:14] you so much for your time on

[8:26:16] the task force and then as a

[8:26:17] planning commissioner as well.

[8:26:19] I really appreciate that this

[8:26:23] is really difficult. Thank >>

[8:26:26] you to also for all the public

[8:26:28] comments both emails that I

[8:26:31] received over the last couple

[8:26:32] of weeks and today and while >>

[8:26:36] I didn't respond to everybody I

[8:26:38] did listen and read all of them

[8:26:40] because I wanted to see where

[8:26:41] you were coming from and

[8:26:42] frankly I live one 2 in 1

[8:26:44] of those neighborhoods that is

[8:26:47] going to be quote unquote up

[8:26:49] zoned and that's of concern to

[8:26:51] me because I'm going to have to

[8:26:52] look at my neighbors after we

[8:26:54] vote on after we approve

[8:26:55] density and they're going to be

[8:26:57] really disappointed at me on

[8:26:59] how I make a vote, how I vote.

[8:27:02] I also want to say that this is

[8:27:04] the last time I will be voting

[8:27:06] on the general plan when this

[8:27:08] comes to us them in december

[8:27:13] of 2027 I won't be here I term

[8:27:16] out at the end of december and

[8:27:17] so this decision that they will

[8:27:21] be making I may be standing in

[8:27:23] the audience coming in and

[8:27:24] saying you're ruining

[8:27:26] my neighborhood. I don't know.

[8:27:28] but we'll see. We'll see. I

[8:27:30] want to challenge you all to

[8:27:32] continue. The engagement so far

[8:27:36] has been really important and

[8:27:38] and I want to challenge you to

[8:27:40] continue to be involved,

[8:27:42] continue to pay attention to

[8:27:43] the issue as it goes forward

[8:27:46] because as it's been explained,

[8:27:49] this is the starting point.

[8:27:50] this isn't the end. We are

[8:27:52] giving direction for staff to

[8:27:54] look at a variety of densities

[8:27:57] but no decision is being made.

[8:28:00] the decision on design

[8:28:01] standards three storeys high

[8:28:04] I've heard a lot of comments

[8:28:05] about three storey high no

[8:28:07] parking that was really

[8:28:08] important that for me that we

[8:28:10] added in the parking because I

[8:28:12] was on council when we removed

[8:28:14] parking a minimum parking as a

[8:28:17] requirement we thought it would

[8:28:19] rightsize itself and it did and

[8:28:21] it didn't. But in the

[8:28:22] neighborhoods we I really felt

[8:28:24] we needed to bring back the

[8:28:26] minimum requirements and staff

[8:28:28] will take a look at that and

[8:28:30] bring it in but your input is

[8:28:32] really important from from all

[8:28:34] sides because truthfully all

[8:28:37] count all of us up here have

[8:28:38] listened to what you have to

[8:28:40] say to my council members

[8:28:42] candela and ortiz >> I hear

[8:28:45] your frustration and I don't

[8:28:48] disagree with it. This feels

[8:28:52] that it's a this is a very

[8:28:53] complicated decision with a lot

[8:28:56] of repercussions but you will

[8:28:59] have a year plus to still craft

[8:29:02] it and come back with the right

[8:29:05] the right thing for the city

[8:29:07] of san jose and for your

[8:29:09] communities. I know there's

[8:29:11] some pressure to to create a

[8:29:15] boundary with vehicle miles

[8:29:18] traveled and a barrier where

[8:29:20] development won't occur. I

[8:29:23] would caution you not to that

[8:29:25] feels a little bit like

[8:29:26] redlining to me and in the old

[8:29:29] days redlining was bad. So

[8:29:31] where you draw a circle around

[8:29:33] an area in a city and said

[8:29:35] we're not going to get people

[8:29:36] who live in that so that area

[8:29:38] housing and so I would just

[8:29:41] caution you as you're thinking

[8:29:42] about that think about the

[8:29:44] unintended consequences and how

[8:29:46] that's going to play out with

[8:29:47] the greater the greater

[8:29:49] community. And I realize I'm

[8:29:50] lecturing but this is the last

[8:29:52] time I get to lecture and

[8:29:54] that's just the way it's going

[8:29:56] to be right now. So again, stay

[8:30:02] please community stay engaged.

[8:30:05] this is it's important that we

[8:30:08] truly >> preserve the the

[8:30:10] character of our of our

[8:30:11] neighborhoods too because

[8:30:13] you're living you're buying or

[8:30:15] you're renting in our

[8:30:16] communities. You're sending

[8:30:18] your kids to schools in those

[8:30:19] communities for a reason

[8:30:21] because you feel connected to

[8:30:24] it. You feel safe there. Your

[8:30:26] family may be there. So we need

[8:30:29] to make sure that we protect

[8:30:30] the dynamic and the the the

[8:30:33] feelings of the communities and

[8:30:36] that doesn't mean I'm against

[8:30:37] density or development

[8:30:39] development is really

[8:30:41] important. We actually

[8:30:42] absolutely must build but we

[8:30:45] haven't seen the effects of sb

[8:30:47] 79 yet and we have a lot

[8:30:49] of vacant schools that could be

[8:30:52] in that pathway of development

[8:30:54] for sb 79 where we're going to

[8:30:56] get some high rises and we

[8:30:58] won't even have an authority or

[8:31:00] an ability to do anything about

[8:31:02] it. I'm concerned about that

[8:31:04] because I had a couple

[8:31:05] of schools close in my district

[8:31:09] I would to staff when you come

[8:31:12] back with the design and

[8:31:14] guidelines and future memos

[8:31:18] could you please use language

[8:31:20] that I or a fifth grader could

[8:31:23] understand? It would really be

[8:31:25] helpful for me to be able to

[8:31:29] explain it to others. I think a

[8:31:32] school board member actually

[8:31:33] mentioned that and she's she's

[8:31:35] right. The the the simpler you

[8:31:37] make it for us the easier it

[8:31:38] is. I think that is about it

[8:31:42] but council member cohen I have

[8:31:45] a question for you regarding

[8:31:47] the south side or actually

[8:31:49] staff you mentioned something

[8:31:50] about the fire station being

[8:31:52] retained as pickup. So do we

[8:31:55] need to clued that in the >>

[8:31:57] motion that the fire station be

[8:32:00] retained in pcb? >> yes. Okay

[8:32:05] then councilmember cohen, will

[8:32:07] you include that? Yeah, I did

[8:32:08] ask and I got the answer before

[8:32:10] that we didn't have to that

[8:32:11] they would understand that. But

[8:32:12] if if it makes it clear we'll

[8:32:13] go ahead and just use that in

[8:32:15] the motion. Okay. With that, I

[8:32:19] know we're going to hear from

[8:32:21] councilmember mulcahy and thank

[8:32:22] you for negotiating all of the

[8:32:24] issues in your area which

[8:32:26] frankly I haven't paid much

[8:32:27] attention to because it's your

[8:32:30] council district >> but that's

[8:32:32] that I think what you've heard

[8:32:35] is the council really does

[8:32:37] listen to what you have to say.

[8:32:39] we're concerned about

[8:32:41] development and yeah and a

[8:32:46] carte >> blanche change of >>

[8:32:47] zoning from residential to

[8:32:49] higher density across the city

[8:32:51] there is a place for

[8:32:52] development. It's not a place

[8:32:54] in all of our neighborhoods

[8:32:56] just to have a citywide zoning

[8:32:59] change with that thank you,

[8:33:01] mayor. Thanks, vice mayor.

[8:33:03] appreciate your reflections.

[8:33:04] let's turn now to

[8:33:05] councilmember mckay. >> thank

[8:33:08] you, mayor. Vice mayor paul,

[8:33:11] you can add me to the same list

[8:33:13] as ortiz and candela has been

[8:33:15] frustrated with things and we

[8:33:17] were in the same brown act

[8:33:18] together. Who knew? So I want

[8:33:22] to thank the city staff. You

[8:33:24] guys have a very difficult job

[8:33:26] balancing not only all the

[8:33:28] public comment and how to

[8:33:30] process that but certainly the

[8:33:32] 11 of us and all of our team.

[8:33:34] so thank you for hanging in

[8:33:36] there >> and and I you know, I

[8:33:39] want to recognize the planning

[8:33:40] commissioners who sat as the

[8:33:41] four year review board and all

[8:33:44] the neighbors who've taken time

[8:33:45] to engage today tonight and all

[8:33:49] the weeks leading up to this

[8:33:52] meeting. So I want to start

[8:33:53] with the items in district six

[8:33:56] because district six is out

[8:33:57] of the entire review process

[8:33:59] leading up to this session is

[8:34:01] the only district where there

[8:34:02] were targeted changes made

[8:34:05] specifically for the

[8:34:06] opportunity for >> additional

[8:34:07] residential capacity city and

[8:34:11] this included both the alameda

[8:34:13] and winchester boulevard. So I

[8:34:15] want to talk about winchester

[8:34:16] for a moment. This has been on

[8:34:18] our agenda a lot over the last

[8:34:21] year and I don't think that

[8:34:25] there's a more involved

[8:34:27] neighborhood than the cary

[8:34:28] neighborhood in this and I just

[8:34:29] want to paint a little picture.

[8:34:32] this >> is not you know, your

[8:34:34] single family neighborhood, you

[8:34:36] know, not wanting encroachment

[8:34:38] into it. This is a neighborhood

[8:34:41] that sits directly astride the

[8:34:44] valley fair mall which as we

[8:34:46] know is our biggest mall, one

[8:34:49] of the top producers in the

[8:34:50] world price per foot and they

[8:34:54] have growth capacity that

[8:34:55] remains. They also have santana

[8:34:59] row just adjacent to that. >>

[8:35:02] so this is not just a

[8:35:03] neighborhood that is pushing

[8:35:05] back on high rise. Rasi this is

[8:35:08] one that is already dealing

[8:35:10] with real everyday issues. No

[8:35:13] valley fare now charges for

[8:35:15] parking. So this is these are

[8:35:17] real issues for this community

[8:35:19] and I want to make sure that

[8:35:20] we're not just thinking about

[8:35:21] that little burb, you know, and

[8:35:25] just kind of pushing off

[8:35:26] housing. This is an affected

[8:35:27] impacted neighborhood. So we've

[8:35:30] heard from our neighbors from

[8:35:31] san jose or from city of santa

[8:35:34] clara too. That's right across

[8:35:35] the street of winchester. And

[8:35:38] you know, we've heard from

[8:35:39] their council member and mayor

[8:35:40] have weighed in on their

[8:35:41] concerns on this. It's worth

[8:35:44] noting too that the planning

[8:35:45] commission took five votes

[8:35:48] specifically on trying to piece

[8:35:50] together something for the

[8:35:52] winchester corridor and

[8:35:54] couldn't come to an agreement

[8:35:55] on it. And it's late and

[8:35:58] at first when I heard it I

[8:36:00] thought it was distasteful. Now

[8:36:01] I'm laughing about it but I

[8:36:02] think he meant it tongue in

[8:36:03] cheek. But after the last

[8:36:05] meeting the planning and the

[8:36:06] chair of the planning

[8:36:07] commission said I think the

[8:36:09] staff give council member

[8:36:11] mulcahy our love knowing that

[8:36:14] we were going to have this

[8:36:15] difficult challenge to deal

[8:36:17] with. >> so which is why I'm

[8:36:19] proud to bring forward a

[8:36:20] compromise proposal that gets

[8:36:22] us residential development and

[8:36:25] at the same time protects

[8:36:27] neighborhoods serving retail

[8:36:29] that is sort of from the

[8:36:31] heading corner of winchester

[8:36:34] down to forest which is

[8:36:36] essentially the the you know,

[8:36:38] the door of valley fair. So as

[8:36:41] we work our way from heading on

[8:36:43] the north we've got some

[8:36:45] residential opportunities as we

[8:36:47] work our way down to existing

[8:36:49] commercial you know active

[8:36:52] successful retail now that

[8:36:55] serves that community. So

[8:36:57] that's really what we're trying

[8:36:59] to accomplish and I would

[8:37:01] really appreciate you

[8:37:02] considering a friendly

[8:37:04] amendment to your motion that's

[8:37:07] on the floor >> and your

[8:37:10] request is to include the your

[8:37:12] entire recommendation >> would

[8:37:14] be one c on the domingo candela

[8:37:18] mulcahy or t's memo. Okay I

[8:37:21] mean I my preference was to

[8:37:24] defer to the work you had done

[8:37:25] in the community but I just I

[8:37:26] wanted I had I had heard staff

[8:37:28] with a little bit of concern

[8:37:29] about the appropriate densities

[8:37:31] and so can you I'll just ask

[8:37:32] chris one more time and then

[8:37:33] I'll >> yeah, happy to talk to

[8:37:36] it. I think you know, I do

[8:37:39] really appreciate

[8:37:41] councilmember mckay's approach

[8:37:42] in trying to sort of be

[8:37:44] thoughtful about how to

[8:37:45] approach this very specific

[8:37:48] part of the recommendation. I

[8:37:50] think you know, initially staff

[8:37:53] had been looking this following

[8:37:55] the proposal for the 17 storey

[8:37:57] development on the particular

[8:37:59] site and trying to find an

[8:38:01] appropriate compromise in the

[8:38:02] conversation at that time was

[8:38:03] this is a you know, fairly

[8:38:05] significant thoroughfare, you

[8:38:07] know on the approach to valley

[8:38:09] fair and santana row there's an

[8:38:11] opportunity here to see

[8:38:13] redevelopment for housing now

[8:38:15] the way that we've considered

[8:38:17] conversion of commercial sites

[8:38:19] throughout the city which is

[8:38:21] different to sort of how we're

[8:38:22] talking about kind of other

[8:38:23] density conversations in this

[8:38:25] recommendation is typically in

[8:38:26] the past we've pushed for

[8:38:28] higher densities on commercial

[8:38:29] sites and part of the reason

[8:38:31] for that there's a couple

[8:38:32] of tradeoffs and one, you know,

[8:38:33] we're trying to create

[8:38:34] opportunity for balanced growth

[8:38:36] throughout san jose that

[8:38:37] provides the sort of services,

[8:38:38] amenities and retail

[8:38:39] opportunities to support our

[8:38:41] residents and when we convert

[8:38:43] that it comes at a cost both

[8:38:45] sort of amenities and services

[8:38:47] cost as well as an actual

[8:38:48] fiscal cost to the city. It was

[8:38:50] mentioned earlier by a

[8:38:52] councilmember committee about

[8:38:53] sort of density levels and the

[8:38:54] fiscal impact of land use. And

[8:38:56] so typically we're always

[8:38:57] looking at pushing those

[8:38:58] densities on commercial

[8:39:00] conversions and I think that's

[8:39:01] part of our hesitation when we

[8:39:03] think about the sort of long

[8:39:04] range approach is that if we're

[8:39:06] going to come down on that

[8:39:07] density into those lower ranges

[8:39:10] you know should we just leave

[8:39:11] it as commercial and just sort

[8:39:13] of wait for the long term

[8:39:14] opportunity? Now the tradeoff

[8:39:16] is that, you know, there is a

[8:39:17] near-term opportunity to see

[8:39:19] redevelopment and create

[8:39:21] opportunity for housing units.

[8:39:23] so I get I mean that's that's

[8:39:24] really the sort of policy

[8:39:25] consideration for council to

[8:39:27] kind of give us the direction

[8:39:28] >> and I >> would say and add

[8:39:30] to that that there are two

[8:39:31] of these properties that we're

[8:39:32] really encouraging you know

[8:39:35] what we're what we're placing

[8:39:37] at it now encourages

[8:39:38] development. Now there are two

[8:39:39] blighted sites that have been

[8:39:40] just sitting there and so they

[8:39:42] are you know, challenges for

[8:39:44] the neighborhoods as well.

[8:39:47] okay. I mean I don't I guess I

[8:39:49] don't hear I think we're

[8:39:50] applying this is applied to

[8:39:51] such a small set of properties

[8:39:55] that it's you know while it's

[8:39:57] my go against some of the

[8:39:58] instincts that I have and the

[8:39:59] staff has about density, you

[8:40:02] know, given the work that

[8:40:03] you've done, I'm I'm okay with

[8:40:05] accepting it as a friendly

[8:40:06] amendment on the motion >> to

[8:40:09] approve the second >> great

[8:40:11] thank you very much. So I do

[8:40:14] want to talk about a couple

[8:40:14] of other things I think it's

[8:40:16] important to highlight west

[8:40:18] san carlos this is item one d

[8:40:21] which has already been picked

[8:40:22] up but I just wanted to sort

[8:40:23] of highlight it so I'm

[8:40:25] supportive of staff's effort to

[8:40:26] evaluate how mixed use

[8:40:28] commercial designations

[8:40:29] throughout the city are working

[8:40:31] where they may not be and

[8:40:32] identifying options for future

[8:40:34] uses. And while conversion to

[8:40:36] commercial may make sense in

[8:40:38] some areas the west san carlos

[8:40:40] corridor is well positioned to

[8:40:42] pursue more new residential

[8:40:45] development. Right now we have

[8:40:47] 1500 units recently delivered

[8:40:49] under construction and or

[8:40:51] submitted when we lost the

[8:40:53] corner. If you remember last

[8:40:55] year race in west san carlos to

[8:40:57] a new chick-fil-a. I made a

[8:40:59] commitment to those against

[8:41:00] that used to identify more

[8:41:02] residential opportunities. This

[8:41:04] is part of that. The corridor

[8:41:06] is in transition despite the

[8:41:08] new construction which is sort

[8:41:10] of more down towards downtown

[8:41:13] san carlos is countless aging,

[8:41:15] vacant and blighted buildings.

[8:41:17] it is littered with unwanted

[8:41:19] commercial activities and

[8:41:20] code violations and has the

[8:41:22] third highest concentration

[8:41:24] of graffiti among major

[8:41:26] corridors in the entire city

[8:41:29] exploring the conversion

[8:41:30] of some of the remaining mixed

[8:41:31] use commercial sites to

[8:41:33] residential would align with

[8:41:34] our goals of creating

[8:41:36] additional residential capacity

[8:41:38] in our urban villages and along

[8:41:40] our major boulevards. And I

[8:41:41] want to thank

[8:41:43] councilmember cohen for pulling

[8:41:44] that into the motion. So on

[8:41:47] residential density, I'm still

[8:41:50] really, really having a

[8:41:52] difficult time reconciling the

[8:41:53] rationale or defense of the

[8:41:55] proposed increase from 8 to 32

[8:41:58] dwelling units per acre

[8:41:59] effectively going from 1 to 4

[8:42:01] units on a lot in a blanket

[8:42:03] approach over the entire city.

[8:42:05] I think that's sort of been the

[8:42:06] common theme the blanket

[8:42:07] approach doesn't even account

[8:42:10] for 80 use generate used state

[8:42:12] density bonus or the 450

[8:42:16] something state laws around

[8:42:18] housing and I think with those

[8:42:23] 80 use junior ideas I mean does

[8:42:25] I think that math can get us up

[8:42:27] to 32 units per acre in

[8:42:29] practice >> so much of the

[8:42:32] disagreement and certainly I

[8:42:33] think why our brown act

[8:42:35] couldn't come together with

[8:42:36] five signatures is really on

[8:42:38] this very item stems from the

[8:42:40] variety of interpretations and

[8:42:42] I know I'm treading on comments

[8:42:44] from earlier but from each

[8:42:47] code and my read is that our

[8:42:49] commitment was to evaluate

[8:42:50] opportunities for 210 housing

[8:42:52] and locations throughout the

[8:42:53] city including areas adjacent

[8:42:56] to urban villages and

[8:42:57] residential areas along major

[8:42:59] streets. The intent was to

[8:43:01] support missing middle housing

[8:43:03] near urban villages, create and

[8:43:04] transition between our

[8:43:06] residential neighborhoods and

[8:43:08] major thoroughfares. I don't

[8:43:10] believe the commitment was

[8:43:11] intended to require a one size

[8:43:13] fits all approach. If it was,

[8:43:16] why even call out urban

[8:43:18] villages >> and major streets

[8:43:19] to begin with? Couldn't the

[8:43:21] phrase throughout the city just

[8:43:23] as likely refer to being

[8:43:24] equitable making sure we get

[8:43:26] density across the city and not

[8:43:29] unfairly consecrate

[8:43:30] concentrated? I'd have expected

[8:43:33] an approach that placed value

[8:43:34] on the uniqueness and diversity

[8:43:37] of our neighborhoods as well as

[8:43:38] differences in access to

[8:43:41] reliable transit and major

[8:43:42] roadways. We should concentrate

[8:43:45] more densely around urban

[8:43:46] villages and apply more modest

[8:43:48] increases in primarily

[8:43:50] residential neighborhoods. We

[8:43:52] should be more meticulous

[8:43:54] considering all the variables

[8:43:56] >> and the realities on the

[8:43:58] ground. In my view this is a

[8:44:01] more thoughtful and responsible

[8:44:02] way to approach city planning.

[8:44:05] this would allow us to create

[8:44:06] the residential capacity we

[8:44:07] need while recognizing that not

[8:44:09] every lot and every

[8:44:10] neighborhood is the same and

[8:44:13] even consider for such an

[8:44:14] important decision we must have

[8:44:16] greater clarity on the

[8:44:18] framework of our decision.

[8:44:19] while my colleagues and I in

[8:44:21] our memo pointed to our support

[8:44:23] of the mayor, vice mayor and

[8:44:25] and the others memo regarding

[8:44:27] you know to environmentally

[8:44:28] clear a range of options it

[8:44:30] still gives me pause because

[8:44:32] of the range of interpretations

[8:44:34] of p 35 the city's promise to

[8:44:37] cd and I'll just finish here >>

[8:44:40] we can't make decisions >>

[8:44:43] based on threats from a state

[8:44:45] agency that has not yet given

[8:44:47] us an answer. Well, some of us

[8:44:49] an answer will actually be

[8:44:51] acceptable to me. We have no

[8:44:53] real opinion from our city

[8:44:55] attorney speculation run by

[8:44:56] city staff has created rumor

[8:44:59] and innuendo and people around

[8:45:01] this building have been playing

[8:45:02] land use attorney for the last

[8:45:04] couple of weeks that kind

[8:45:05] of guns lightning only gets us

[8:45:07] in trouble. There's just too

[8:45:09] much at stake. I don't I went

[8:45:14] last hoping that there would be

[8:45:15] a magic answer to where we

[8:45:18] go here and I appreciate all

[8:45:20] of my colleagues, you know,

[8:45:22] suggesting that this is only

[8:45:24] the beginning of this

[8:45:25] conversation and I just really

[8:45:29] hope that we get the

[8:45:30] information we need. The

[8:45:32] community gets the information

[8:45:33] it deserves and we can come to

[8:45:36] a solution on this in december

[8:45:38] of 27. Thank you. Thanks,

[8:45:47] councilmember. Appreciate your

[8:45:47] >> comments. It may give you

[8:45:50] some solace that were we to

[8:45:52] come back and ultimately agree

[8:45:54] not I'm sure not ruling would

[8:45:55] like this but were we to

[8:45:57] go with 16 plus use and not

[8:46:02] allow for the combination

[8:46:05] of lots you would effectively

[8:46:06] be defaulting test benign which

[8:46:08] is what we have today so it

[8:46:10] does preserve a range that

[8:46:12] allows a status quo approach

[8:46:15] but other options as well. Let

[8:46:17] me turn to council. It could >>

[8:46:20] first you know, I appreciate

[8:46:23] everybody, you know, chiming in

[8:46:25] and given their perspective

[8:46:27] it's it's appreciated and >>

[8:46:28] ditto councilmember mulcahy on

[8:46:31] your talking points and you

[8:46:32] know we talked a lot as we were

[8:46:34] coming up with our our group

[8:46:35] memos and you know, mayor, to

[8:46:37] your point earlier about now

[8:46:39] being the opportunity for for

[8:46:40] input and it being critical to

[8:46:43] offering the guidance to staff

[8:46:46] in order to see a program that

[8:46:48] best addresses the concerns

[8:46:50] that we've we've outlined. And

[8:46:52] with that I'd like to offer a

[8:46:53] friendly amendment to the

[8:46:55] motion and shout out to the

[8:46:58] city attorney's office for

[8:46:59] helping our office craft this

[8:47:01] language with regards to the

[8:47:05] environmental review and in

[8:47:07] your all in your your memo with

[8:47:09] amend and replace its one be

[8:47:11] amend and replace e one to

[8:47:13] direct staff to environmental

[8:47:14] review increasing the densities

[8:47:16] from 1624 and 32 and return to

[8:47:19] the council with these options

[8:47:21] etc. Etc. I'd like to be

[8:47:23] specific in exploring it as

[8:47:27] part of this environmental

[8:47:28] review to study and explore

[8:47:30] guardrails for high vmt areas

[8:47:34] including ingress, egress,

[8:47:36] public safety impacts to

[8:47:38] emergency response times

[8:47:39] associated with police and fire

[8:47:42] public transit options as it

[8:47:43] relates to mobility, parking

[8:47:44] minimums and development design

[8:47:47] standards. And this is all

[8:47:48] language that I've ran through

[8:47:50] the city attorney's office that

[8:47:52] would help us get an extra you

[8:47:54] know, review as part of the

[8:47:56] environmental >> process that

[8:47:57] they're going to be engaging in

[8:47:59] to be able to flesh that out

[8:48:00] given the impact to these

[8:48:02] areas. And I would I would hope

[8:48:04] you would accept this as a as a

[8:48:06] as a friendly yeah. I >> mean I

[8:48:09] think it makes sense. I will

[8:48:10] tell you and I have mahan up

[8:48:11] because I just wanted to say

[8:48:12] some things that that have been

[8:48:13] triggered by this conversation

[8:48:14] since I went first and I and I

[8:48:16] >> wanted to go I wanted to

[8:48:17] go in front of you on purpose.

[8:48:17] no, no, no. I wanted to but I'm

[8:48:19] just I'm just saying that I

[8:48:21] because I have some of the same

[8:48:22] concerns that >> you have that

[8:48:23] led you to your to your >>

[8:48:25] memo. It's not like I didn't I

[8:48:27] mean so so I appreciate that

[8:48:29] there's a way to study these

[8:48:30] impacts without at upfront

[8:48:33] eliminating them from the where

[8:48:36] we can make changes. I think

[8:48:39] that was the point it was and

[8:48:41] so I was actually going to ask

[8:48:42] in my comments if there was a

[8:48:43] way to be more granular. So I

[8:48:44] appreciate what you're >>

[8:48:46] recommending. Yeah sorry said

[8:48:49] okay with the second okay

[8:48:51] great. And you will you've

[8:48:54] got that language clear the

[8:48:55] city attorney and will share

[8:48:56] with the clerk thanks

[8:48:58] councilmember okay did you have

[8:48:59] more was that that was that

[8:49:01] concluded your remarks? Thank

[8:49:02] you. Let me go to

[8:49:03] councilmember casey. Well I'll

[8:49:06] be brief. Mulcahy and domingos

[8:49:09] stole a lot of my thunder. I

[8:49:12] appreciate councilmember cohen

[8:49:13] for incorporating the vmt

[8:49:15] language. I know even in our

[8:49:16] brown act >> we had had

[8:49:17] conversations about that. The

[8:49:19] challenge for me is I'm nearing

[8:49:22] half a century in my district

[8:49:24] and I remember looking over

[8:49:26] my backyard and seeing orchards

[8:49:27] and now it's a housing track so

[8:49:28] I understand change is

[8:49:30] inevitable. My concern is that

[8:49:32] we're not doing this in a

[8:49:33] thoughtful way and I think

[8:49:34] mulcahy >> had mentioned that.

[8:49:36] I think we're in a negotiation

[8:49:38] with hpd and I don't think it's

[8:49:40] appropriate for us to just

[8:49:42] yield to their authority and do

[8:49:44] what essentially negotiate

[8:49:46] against ourselves. So I'm

[8:49:47] supportive of us aggressively

[8:49:49] negotiating for >> the lowest

[8:49:52] density in areas where it

[8:49:54] doesn't >> make sense. I ran on

[8:49:56] density where it makes sense in

[8:49:57] downtown and in transportation

[8:49:59] corridors density does not make

[8:50:01] sense in d-10 so ultimately I'm

[8:50:03] open to our memos but when the

[8:50:05] rubber hits the road I will not

[8:50:07] support density >> in d-10

[8:50:09] thank you. Thanks

[8:50:13] councilmember. Let me go back

[8:50:15] to sue. Let me go did I just

[8:50:18] put >> my light on because I

[8:50:19] assumed you're saying my name

[8:50:20] so yes I'll circle the system

[8:50:22] doesn't anyway, thank you. I

[8:50:25] just want to start by just

[8:50:26] saying look many of us in this

[8:50:27] city are lucky in terms of the

[8:50:29] timing of when we were able to

[8:50:31] buy homes in our city. I just

[8:50:33] tell the story I bought my home

[8:50:34] 27 years ago. I was just I mean

[8:50:37] I was young, I was in my 20s. I

[8:50:38] was able to buy a home in

[8:50:39] my 20s. That home as my value

[8:50:42] has appreciated by a factor

[8:50:43] of six over 27 years now is

[8:50:47] that an expectation that that

[8:50:48] should happen? I don't believe

[8:50:50] so and I will say that I

[8:50:51] sometimes feel sheepish about

[8:50:54] this whole thing that people

[8:50:55] now can't do what I did right

[8:50:58] and am I willing to say that

[8:51:00] that some things that we do in

[8:51:02] our neighborhood will allow

[8:51:03] will force my home value to

[8:51:05] depreciate a little bit so that

[8:51:07] others will have more

[8:51:07] opportunity? I think that's

[8:51:08] reasonable. I've I've gained

[8:51:10] and I've been and I've been

[8:51:11] able to benefit from this

[8:51:14] community and the and the and

[8:51:17] the problems that we're trying

[8:51:18] to deal with as a community. So

[8:51:19] I'm just going to say that up

[8:51:20] front I think it's important to

[8:51:21] point that out and just say it

[8:51:23] pains me that others can't have

[8:51:25] what I have and that and we're

[8:51:26] fortunate to do what I did

[8:51:27] at the time that I was able to

[8:51:28] do it. But a lot of things can

[8:51:31] be true at once. One size fits

[8:51:34] all is not always the best but

[8:51:37] we >> shouldn't say that there

[8:51:39] are areas of the city where we

[8:51:40] can't provide opportunity for

[8:51:42] people to be able to live there

[8:51:43] . The whole idea of this

[8:51:45] of this policy is that >> we

[8:51:49] should be offering opportunity

[8:51:51] for people to find places

[8:51:52] anywhere in the city if they

[8:51:54] want a certain school district,

[8:51:55] if they want certain services

[8:51:57] we provide opportunity and so

[8:51:59] both those things are sort

[8:52:01] of counter to each other. One

[8:52:02] size fits all is not always the

[8:52:03] best but we also can't paint

[8:52:06] the broad brush of of saying

[8:52:10] certain areas are going to be

[8:52:11] off limits and I appreciate the

[8:52:13] comments that vice mayor made

[8:52:15] about if you do that you're

[8:52:16] you're kind of keeping in place

[8:52:19] policies that have gotten us

[8:52:21] into this problem in the first

[8:52:22] place. Character of cities and

[8:52:25] neighborhoods necessarily

[8:52:26] changes over time, right? I

[8:52:28] mean we the fact that this was

[8:52:29] the way it was 40 years ago

[8:52:30] when people bought their homes

[8:52:32] doesn't mean it's the way it's

[8:52:32] going to be now as

[8:52:33] councilmember casey just

[8:52:34] pointed out. Right. I mean

[8:52:36] there were orchards and there's

[8:52:37] homes now there's going to be

[8:52:37] some density >> and things are

[8:52:39] changing and we should be able

[8:52:40] to work work on that. But one

[8:52:44] of the things that been

[8:52:44] occurring to me during this

[8:52:45] conversation is you know, I've

[8:52:47] been pushing back on the one

[8:52:48] size fits all from a state

[8:52:50] standpoint from our state

[8:52:51] legislators this idea that

[8:52:52] every city should have this

[8:52:53] should have the same set

[8:52:54] of rules >> we you know, we

[8:52:57] shouldn't necessarily accept

[8:52:58] that one size can fit all in

[8:52:59] our city and I and it's

[8:53:01] difficult to ask how can we be

[8:53:03] more granular in this decision

[8:53:05] making and I agree with

[8:53:08] councilmember ken jealous and

[8:53:08] your basic premise that we

[8:53:10] should be more granular. I

[8:53:12] don't necessarily agree that

[8:53:13] that that the vmt was the right

[8:53:15] approach because it basically

[8:53:16] shuts down huge swaths of our

[8:53:18] city from having the

[8:53:19] opportunity that's that's the

[8:53:21] challenge here and I just

[8:53:21] wanted to say that so I mean

[8:53:23] it's a challenge then put on

[8:53:25] the planning department >>

[8:53:27] going forward to think about

[8:53:28] this granularity what makes

[8:53:30] sense? How can we be more

[8:53:31] focused without shutting it

[8:53:33] down anywhere? I don't know the

[8:53:35] answer to that. But >> you

[8:53:37] know, even when we study 1632,

[8:53:39] 16, 2432 are there some places

[8:53:41] where 16 makes sense in some

[8:53:42] places where 32 makes sense. I

[8:53:44] know it's a lot of work to sort

[8:53:46] of decide neighborhood by

[8:53:47] neighborhood what makes sense

[8:53:48] but I just we shouldn't

[8:53:50] necessarily be shutting off

[8:53:51] that conversation. I think I do

[8:53:55] appreciate the memo from

[8:53:56] today's committee and I when I

[8:53:57] read it I thought this

[8:53:58] sounds like a good idea but I

[8:53:59] just needed a little more

[8:54:00] explanation on it. >> the idea

[8:54:03] that we can bring back some

[8:54:05] local control over design

[8:54:06] standards and what gets built

[8:54:08] is important and I will say

[8:54:10] this is a big fight across the

[8:54:11] state. I'm I am the chair

[8:54:13] of the resolutions committee

[8:54:14] for the league of the cities

[8:54:15] of the state of california.

[8:54:16] this >> september >> at our

[8:54:19] conference there is a

[8:54:20] resolution being brought

[8:54:21] forward >> to the general

[8:54:23] assembly >> of the league that

[8:54:24] I will be evaluating as chair

[8:54:26] as part of that committee will

[8:54:27] be evaluating asking for a

[8:54:29] working group to figure out how

[8:54:30] to put how to develop a

[8:54:32] potential state constitutional

[8:54:33] amendment to bring back local

[8:54:35] control of land use for cities

[8:54:37] because this is the push that

[8:54:38] cities are are pushing back on

[8:54:39] the state. This conversation is

[8:54:41] going >> to be had at the state

[8:54:42] level so this is not easy and I

[8:54:46] and you know I do you know

[8:54:48] while I appreciate some of the

[8:54:50] intent of some of the state

[8:54:51] laws, they have continued to

[8:54:52] pile on and pile on and it's

[8:54:55] made it our lives difficult. So

[8:54:57] I just want to say, you know, I

[8:54:59] made a motion I support some

[8:55:00] of the underlying ideas here

[8:55:01] but it was never totally

[8:55:02] comfortable to me that we were

[8:55:05] doing this broad brush. I just

[8:55:06] wanted to say that here and

[8:55:08] sort of leave that out there as

[8:55:11] a thought as we move forward in

[8:55:12] the next 16 months before it

[8:55:13] comes back to council. Thank

[8:55:15] you. Great. Thanks

[8:55:19] councilmember. I appreciate

[8:55:20] that and all the friendly

[8:55:21] amendments that you accepted

[8:55:23] along with the vice mayor

[8:55:25] councilor casey. Yes. Sorry for

[8:55:28] extending conversation. I just

[8:55:29] want to push back a bit on this

[8:55:30] notion that density anywhere

[8:55:32] at least to affordability I

[8:55:33] don't know that that

[8:55:33] necessarily bears out in

[8:55:35] reality. I >> think david

[8:55:38] noelle has a good point in

[8:55:39] terms of condo defect if we

[8:55:40] build a torn of condos, smaller

[8:55:43] units you know affordable by

[8:55:44] design that will lead to

[8:55:46] affordability. But a multi-unit

[8:55:48] in los gatos for example is

[8:55:50] still very expensive. A

[8:55:52] multi-unit in almaden is still

[8:55:54] going to be very expensive.

[8:55:55] it's not going to be

[8:55:56] affordable. So I just want to

[8:55:58] push back on this idea that

[8:55:59] density naturally be used to

[8:56:00] affordability because I don't

[8:56:01] think that's necessarily true.

[8:56:05] all right. And and I suspect

[8:56:08] this is going to be a very

[8:56:09] engaging ongoing conversation

[8:56:11] for this council over the

[8:56:12] coming years. But let me turn

[8:56:13] now to councilmember tordillos

[8:56:14] >> and I would push back

[8:56:16] against that notion. You know

[8:56:18] the city has actually looked

[8:56:19] at this. They did a feasibility

[8:56:21] study on missing rental housing

[8:56:22] in 2021 and across the board

[8:56:24] they found that 4 to 8 unit

[8:56:26] projects would be cheaper than

[8:56:27] the lower density projects that

[8:56:29] they studied. This can also be

[8:56:30] seen in data on actual missing

[8:56:32] little programs that have been

[8:56:33] developed in other cities.

[8:56:34] there have been studies of 4000

[8:56:36] missing middle homes built in

[8:56:38] seattle over the past 20 years

[8:56:40] and they consistently showed

[8:56:41] that higher density projects

[8:56:42] had lower prices been lower

[8:56:44] density projects. Oh boy. Here

[8:56:48] we go. All right. We only do a

[8:56:50] study session on this specific

[8:56:52] topic, councilor. Okay. >> so

[8:56:55] as you need to do in every

[8:56:57] debate is define the terms. So

[8:56:59] a blanket statement of more

[8:57:01] density leads to cheaper

[8:57:02] development. That's just not

[8:57:03] true. Are you talking about 100

[8:57:06] unit density versus a duplex? I

[8:57:10] don't know that that actually

[8:57:11] bears out so I would push back.

[8:57:13] I think that's a gut feeling.

[8:57:16] I'd look at this study and I

[8:57:17] assure you that there's issues

[8:57:18] with it. There's no way you can

[8:57:20] tell me you look at vancouver,

[8:57:21] you look at like I mentioned

[8:57:23] los gatos, you look at hong

[8:57:24] kong international cities, the

[8:57:26] demand >> for housing in

[8:57:28] certain areas is so high and

[8:57:30] it's supply and demand I get

[8:57:31] it. But there's enough of the

[8:57:32] demand where we we can't

[8:57:34] outstrip the demand with the

[8:57:35] supply at the moment in certain

[8:57:37] areas in san jose in

[8:57:37] particular. So I push back on

[8:57:39] your push back. All right. I

[8:57:44] think at that point we're going

[8:57:45] to pause and take a vote. Thank

[8:57:47] you all. It's a great

[8:57:48] discussion. I appreciate all

[8:57:49] the really thoughtful memos and

[8:57:51] recommendations. Ions thank

[8:57:52] you, councilor cohen, for

[8:57:53] managing the motion there >>

[8:57:57] and staff thank >> you for all

[8:57:59] of your work and thank you the

[8:58:00] members of the committee you

[8:58:01] hung in there all the way. So

[8:58:04] what time >> is it? We're

[8:58:05] at 1030. Impressive. Thank you.

[8:58:07] I appreciate it, toni. Let's

[8:58:09] vote

[8:58:22] . I, I still have one >> got to

[8:58:26] hold out. Okay. Keep motion

[8:58:30] passes 8 to 3 with dawn kendall

[8:58:34] and casey voting no. >> all

[8:58:36] right. Okay, we are thank you

[8:58:41] all. We are >> on to open forum

[8:58:45] >> and this is an opportunity

[8:58:48] for members of the public to

[8:58:49] comment on city business that

[8:58:51] was not on today's agenda >>

[8:58:55] 2012 credit cards. Okay. I have

[8:58:58] >> ernestina if you're still

[8:59:01] here brady how will rich ted

[8:59:07] scarlett and I don't know this

[8:59:12] the pine on lou cassie I don't

[8:59:17] know what that means but those

[8:59:18] are the ones I have in person.

[8:59:22] if nobody is coming down I'm

[8:59:23] going to go ahead and go to

[8:59:25] brian followed by blair online

[8:59:28] . Can you hear me okay? Yes, I

[8:59:36] just I watch the whole thing.

[8:59:38] I'm really glad that we do this

[8:59:39] because I was able to

[8:59:41] go through about 500 coins and

[8:59:44] do my laundry and listen to but

[8:59:47] I have to say this and all

[8:59:48] of you worked very hard. I mean

[8:59:50] I have agreed with everything

[8:59:51] but I have to take back what

[8:59:56] I've said a couple of times

[8:59:57] where nobody reads emails that

[8:59:58] I have been wrong about that

[9:00:01] and proven wrong today on

[9:00:02] several occasions and I

[9:00:03] apologize for that. Thank you

[9:00:05] and have a good evening. Thank

[9:00:07] you. Blair remember these are

[9:00:10] for topics not on the agenda,

[9:00:11] >> right? Blair beakman hi. I

[9:00:15] got quite a learning lesson

[9:00:16] today. Thank you. I hopefully I

[9:00:18] can talk about it. Wilson open

[9:00:19] government tomorrow I thanks

[9:00:23] that you have zoom >> available

[9:00:25] again by the way I >> it's

[9:00:28] important to the city

[9:00:30] of oakland is there developing

[9:00:32] a full community process to

[9:00:34] address the future of how to

[9:00:35] leave block that they can look

[9:00:38] for another aop vendor as a

[9:00:40] full community process they're

[9:00:42] taking you know another 12 to

[9:00:46] 16 months to do that that

[9:00:48] they've already started I think

[9:00:50] san jose and san diego

[9:00:51] definitely can be doing the

[9:00:52] same sort of things >> you guys

[9:00:54] kind of oh it you obviously put

[9:00:57] in way too much surveillance

[9:00:59] tech under the carter

[9:01:00] administration. I hope you

[9:01:02] learned an important lessons

[9:01:03] that minimal amounts of tech

[9:01:05] can do the same amount

[9:01:06] of public safety work and those

[9:01:08] are important lessons to learn.

[9:01:09] good luck on leaving flock and

[9:01:11] finding a new way. Hope your

[9:01:12] vendor that we practice pete >>

[9:01:15] rich see yeah I'm here. Are you

[9:01:24] able to hear me? Yes. So this

[9:01:28] is in regards to stinky new

[9:01:33] food trucks. >> oh okay. Yeah.

[9:01:40] so we're I don't know why it's

[9:01:43] echoing but anyways we are here

[9:01:46] about talking about your you're

[9:01:49] moving every 15 minutes. Are >>

[9:01:59] you done? No. So you guys have

[9:02:03] a lot of that that we have to

[9:02:05] move our food truck every 15

[9:02:07] minutes and that's it's pretty

[9:02:10] much impossible because we have

[9:02:13] it takes 15 minutes just to get

[9:02:14] the food truck >> started and

[9:02:20] yes so that's what we're here

[9:02:21] for. Okay thank >> you colin

[9:02:24] user to start six to unmute hi

[9:02:32] I like to address the situation

[9:02:36] at the corner of speak in

[9:02:37] lucchese there's been a pile

[9:02:41] of debris that is impeding

[9:02:43] traffic. I have contacted the

[9:02:47] city numerous times and

[9:02:48] contacted the vice mayor

[9:02:50] numerous times and her staff

[9:02:52] and this pile just keeps

[9:02:53] growing bigger and bigger with

[9:02:55] more trash and it needs to be

[9:02:59] removed just in a red zone.

[9:03:00] it's actually an emergency zone

[9:03:02] for emergency vehicles and

[9:03:03] painted red and there's no

[9:03:06] reason that it can't be

[9:03:07] removed. I realize they may

[9:03:09] pile stuff back after is

[9:03:11] removed but it shouldn't stay

[9:03:12] there till it's dried out as a

[9:03:13] fire hazard. It needs to be

[9:03:15] moved and it cause it's almost

[9:03:18] caused me to rear end people

[9:03:19] because when they go to make a

[9:03:20] right hand turn they break

[9:03:22] because there's debris in the

[9:03:24] way. It shouldn't be that way

[9:03:26] and there's no way it should

[9:03:27] take this long to have it

[9:03:29] removed. I've called d o t I've

[9:03:31] called tampa office and no one

[9:03:33] is. Thank you, sheila. I I >>

[9:03:42] own property on medgar avenue

[9:03:45] in san jose and at the corner

[9:03:48] of medgar and the entrance to

[9:03:51] the 280 freeway is a huge

[9:03:53] parking lot that would be

[9:03:55] perfect for another cerato huge

[9:03:59] building and I don't understand

[9:04:01] why there's nothing being done

[9:04:03] about it. It's empty and that's

[9:04:05] a perfect space for advancing

[9:04:09] the goal of affordable housing.

[9:04:13] I mean it's got to be

[9:04:14] affordable almost. Garris

[9:04:15] whatever your bills I agree so

[9:04:17] I mean I don't know who is I

[9:04:20] don't know whose district

[9:04:21] that's in I, I don't know but

[9:04:23] what I do know is that

[9:04:24] particular corner is open

[9:04:26] whether it's owned by the

[9:04:27] church or whether it's I don't

[9:04:30] know but I'm going to ask every

[9:04:32] person who knows about medgar

[9:04:35] and the entrance to the 280

[9:04:37] freeway to invest. I gave that

[9:04:41] as a reason. Thank >> you,

[9:04:43] milo. Hi. So I have a thought

[9:04:50] experiment. I think it might

[9:04:51] illuminate the conversation

[9:04:53] tonight. Imagine you have two

[9:04:55] really nice toys lego toys the

[9:04:58] right next to each other. They

[9:05:00] happen to be in los gatos. One

[9:05:02] of the toys is made of what two

[9:05:03] pieces you knock it down and

[9:05:07] with the pieces you build for

[9:05:09] smaller toys >> you think each

[9:05:12] one of these toys they're still

[9:05:13] really nice. We still

[9:05:15] got those. Do you think each

[9:05:17] one of these four smaller toys

[9:05:19] is going to sell for the same

[9:05:21] amount as the one really nice

[9:05:23] toy right next to it that

[9:05:26] wasn't knocked to pieces? This

[9:05:27] sounds like it's on >> the same

[9:05:28] topic we already talked about

[9:05:29] last night earlier this doesn't

[9:05:31] sound like a new topic price

[9:05:40] hello. This is priced >>

[9:05:42] at eight. >> okay. Okay so

[9:05:48] my name is bryce. I own and

[9:05:50] operate a gourmet mobile food

[9:05:51] truck together with my mother.

[9:05:53] the current rule that states a

[9:05:55] food truck must move every 15

[9:05:56] minutes does not match with

[9:05:58] reality. It takes 20 minutes to

[9:06:00] get set up to perform duties.

[9:06:02] I'm asking council to delete or

[9:06:04] >> amend this rule so I may

[9:06:06] continue to perform my duties

[9:06:07] and support my family. I have

[9:06:09] received countless citations

[9:06:11] and infractions which truly

[9:06:13] boggles my mind because I am an

[9:06:16] active member in my community

[9:06:19] who works with many youth

[9:06:20] groups, churches and

[9:06:22] nonprofits. And I'm just asking

[9:06:24] that we can either revise the

[9:06:27] rules that have to do with

[9:06:28] mobile vending. I'm willing to

[9:06:30] come back next tuesday and as

[9:06:32] long as it takes because you

[9:06:34] know, we pay all of our fees.

[9:06:35] we have every permit possible.

[9:06:38] and I just I love stand part

[9:06:39] of the community and I want to

[9:06:40] continue. Thank you. >> thank

[9:06:42] you. Back to council. I need

[9:06:49] somebody to adjourn. >> all

[9:06:55] right. Thanks, everybody. We're

[9:06:57] adjourned. Have a great night

[9:06:59] >>

[9:09:49] . >>

City Council

Agenda

Transcript