That. All >> right. Good
afternoon, everyone. Welcome to
your city hall. I'd like to
call to order this meeting
of the salzer city council for
the afternoon of august 18th.
toni, would you please call the
roll to me here, compose
present today's here to win
ortiz present mulcahy >> here.
don kendall is here. Casey
foley mehan >> here you have a
quorum. Thank you. All right.
now if you're able please stand
and join us in the pledge
of allegiance. I pledge
allegiance to the flag >>
of the united states of america
and to the republic for which
it stands one nation under god,
indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. >> thank you
and welcome once again. Today's
invocation will be provided by
ten fong taekwondo institute
council member twan please tell
us more. >> thank you very
much, mayor. Good afternoon
everyone. Today my office is
pleased to present our >>
second invocation of the month.
we are especially honored to
have a special performance >>
prepared for us today thanks to
tun fong and his taekwondo
group. Taekwondo is a martial
art that emphasized discipline,
respect, perseverance and
self-control beyond impressive
techniques and physical skill.
it teaches us the >> importance
of focus, confidence and value
that can inspire >> all of us
in our daily lives. And
of course >> we are very
grateful they are here to
demonstrate this skill to us
today. I think it is safe to
say that after watching this
performance none of us will be
volunteering to test their
kicks. With that please join >>
me in giving a warm welcome to
ten fong and his taekwondo
group >>
. Take one look. Thank you
both. >> I am the fastest way
this race
is to be awarded for the five.
oh, my god. >> oh. Oh! Oh oh
oh. 000. Oh. Oh oh. Oh. Oh. Oh
yeah. >> oh oh. So. So far. So
far. All right. Glad you're
back on >> the official place.
I've got to go back. >> thank
you so. We start we started
when you start to get started
>> up on a bit out, right?
yeah. We're going to be get a
lot out natalie >> okay, now
okay. Just >> gonna have fun.
wow. Got nothing to come by but
I think it's fun to be up loud
oh yeah yeah okay yeah >> yeah
oh yeah. Okay. So what what is
it >> like what? Soccer got?
let's go first. Is that what I
talked about? Think back and
come back and get back to the
back but ready? Yeah. Get
ready. Ready. Why don't you go?
I don't know. Maybe. Yeah.
ready to go? I think >> that
this and >> like yeah, >> yeah.
marvin >> come up and >> block
up yeah of yeah that's just
like that but this way just
come back out now okay >>
. It could be fun but I set >>
you up. Yeah. Okay on it. Fun
>> that I kind of like it. Yes,
please. Yeah, yeah >>
. But in front of I don't know
which like that I mean it
actually plaza yeah I have been
out and you have to measure
yeah it's good to have you have
to tell us where I go very very
fancy that's it but but but
very close and yet like yeah >>
that's what >> we we we >> like
>> working now >>
. Yeah so now let's know if
that's your plan. Yeah. How you
cook it right I mean you you
now with left. Yeah >> like I'm
lena
yeah I'm 5000 yeah >>
back and be like I through oh
okay yeah >> yeah yeah
okay and yeah yeah
yeah so so yeah >>
I'm not only the about >> the
no but look there's not look >>
okay >> thank you all very much
again that was tom fong
taekwondo institute thank you
again council member dawn for
arranging today's invocation.
we'll do our ceremonial items.
vice mayor foley, if you would
join me at the podium we will
recognize the bay area women's
sports initiative also known as
bossy >>
. >> good afternoon. Today I'm
>> here to recognize the bay
area women's sports initiative
for their continued success in
advancing youth recreation.
founded in 2005 bossy and you
gotta love that acronym, don't
you? >> women are bossy but
they're also in control. >> is
a nonprofit. Bossy >> is a
nonprofit organization rooted
in the belief that the women's
sports community holds the
power to engage, inspire and
empower girls to stay active
regardless of ability or
socioeconomic >> status. As
someone who has been proud to
support bossy, I have seen
firsthand why this organization
is so important to our
community. Throughout >> the
last 21 years bossy has
supported over 29,000 children
and youth through participation
in their free programs.
empowered 80 plus coaches and
inspired >> more than 9800
volunteers. And let's be honest
girls belong on the court, on
the field, at the rink and in
the stands cheering each other
on. We're also living >>
through such an exciting time
for women's sports here in
san jose and across the bay
area particularly with the
addition of the national >>
women's hockey league team
coming to san jose soon. We're
seeing more professional
women's sports teams, more
attention to women athletes and
more young girls getting >> the
chance to see women succeeding
at the highest levels. And I
think one of the most powerful
things we can give a young girl
is the ability to look at an
athlete and say >> I want to be
her or even better I can be
her. But that starts way before
the professional level. It
starts when a girl gets her
first pair of cleats steps onto
a field, joins a team and
realizes she belongs there.
that's where >> the bay area
women's sports initiative comes
in. Girls often have less
opportunities to play
sports than boys. And this
disparity is even greater for
girls of color. Girls who play
sports have better physical and
mental health outcomes and
graduate high school and
college at higher rates. Bossy
is creating those opportunities
for girls right here in our
community. Bosses first
initiative aims to harness the
power of women athletes by
providing opportunity to serve
young girls who weren't being
exposed to organized sports or
physical education classes and
to reach girls in communities
>> where obesity and diabetes
were prevalent. As someone who
cares deeply about san jose and
the young people who call our
city home, I really value >>
organizations that are
investing in our kids and
giving them opportunities to
thrive. Because when we invest
in girls in sports we aren't
just creating better athletes.
we're creating future leaders,
coaches and community members.
congratulations to >> bossie
your coaches, volunteers,
parents and the incredible
young women and girls you
serve. Thank you for reminding
our girls that they are capable
and reserve >> every chance to
play, compete, lead and
succeed. To >> accept today's
commendation, I'd like to
welcome dana weintraub, ceo
of bossy. Okay. First of all, I
would just like to recognize
those young people who just
performed and shared their
incredible skill of tai chi
taekwondo with us. Wow, that
was impressive. Good >>
afternoon, vice mayor foley.
mayor mehan and all the members
of the city council, city
leaders, partners and friends
today >> I also have with
me two bossy alumni coaches who
are now on staff with us also
two former collegiate and
professional athletes annette
greenlee and lindsey van allen.
so, so glad they could be here
with us. The >> rest of our
team is getting ready to get
back on playgrounds for back to
school. On behalf of all of us,
thank you for this incredibly
meaningful recognition of our
20th plus one anniversary bossi
story is in so many ways a
san jose's story. We were
founded in 2005 at a time when
investment in women's
sports and access for sport for
girls was far from guaranteed.
the first women's professional
soccer league had recently
folded including our very own
san jose cyber is the league's
very first champions. Marlene
barnes read the former manager
of the cyber res along with
soccer legend legends san jose
native and santa clara bronco
brandi chastain and stanford
cardinal julie foudy wanted to
preserve something powerful
that had grown out of that team
the connection between women
athletes and community in truth
silicon valley fashion bossi
began in marlene's garage and
our first official office soon
followed right here at city
hall at the invitation of then
mayor ron gonzalez. So it feels
especially fitting to be back
here at city hall 20 plus years
later since our founding as you
just heard from vice mayor
foley, bossi has enrolled over
29,000 children and youth
engaged over 9500 volunteers
and 80 athlete leadership team
coaches, two of whom are with
me today. We've built deep
partnerships with schools and
communities >> throughout
san jose and the bay area. But
the numbers only tell part
of our story. The real story is
the thousands of girls from
under-resourced neighborhoods
and children with disabilities
who have stepped onto a busy
playground and found that they
belong. The young girl >> who
finds confidence and begins to
see yourself as a leader the
bossy alumni who come back
years later >> and are leaders
in their community >> as bossy
coaches, volunteers, staff and
board members as well as chief
of staff to city council member
peter ortiz. Like our boss the
alumni brisa rojas marino all
creating the same opportunity
for the next generation. 20
years ago >> bossy was
created in the wake of the loss
of a professional women's
sports team. Today san jose and
the bay area area are
experienced an extraordinary
new era in women's sports. And
the deep community connections
which follow just yesterday the
entire bfc team came out to
hubbard media arts academy
playground >> and >> reminded
us what's possible when
communities invest in the long,
long game. We are deeply >>
grateful to the city of san
jose for being part of bossi
story from the very beginning
and continuing to believe in
the power of sport to
strengthen our community. Thank
>> you vice mayor foley, mayor
mehan and the entire city
council for this commendation
and for ensuring that the next
generation of san jose youth
has the opportunity to play, to
lead and to succeed. We are
incredibly proud of what we've
built together over these first
20 years and even more excited
about what's ahead. Thank you.
and we have a little something
to except when I first >>
actually gave you this. Thank
you very much. Thank you. And
our community. Thank you.
appreciate it. Let's get a
photo and we have a little
something for you to wear in
the photo. Okay, great. Send
middle
thank. It's great. Thank you.
thank you so much and hopefully
see you at the bfc. All right.
thank you vice mayor and boss.
we really appreciate the
incredible work you do on our
community will now move on to
councilmember mulcahy and
councilor dumont if you would
join me here at the podium we
will recognize valley services
>>
. It's always good afternoon
everyone. I first of all I want
to say thanks to
councilmember mulcahy for
allowing me to present this
commendation alongside with
him. It is my honor to
recognize valley >> services
for nearly 40 years of service
to the residents of san jose.
founded by mike and monica
salinas valley service began >>
in 1986 as a small scrap metal
businesses and has grown into
full service sanitation company
serving projects and events
throughout our community.
valley services has also been
>> a dedicated community
partners supporting local
organization and events
including working with the
san jose foos to provide
restroom facility >> for major
community gathering. I
especially want to recognize
their commitment to second
chance employment by creating
opportunities for individual
who are incarcerated or return
from rehabilitation. Valet
service has helped people
rebuild their lives, support >>
their families and reach
important milestones. For four
decades valley's >> service
have shown that a successful
local business can also be a
force for positive change.
while staying true to >> it,
family and community values >>
on behalf of the city of san
jose, thank you for your
continuous service and
commitment to our community.
and I believe >> would like to
say a few words. >> good
afternoon mayor. Council
members and everyone here
today. On behalf of my family
and everyone at valley services
thank you for this recognition.
it's especially meaningful to
receive it here in san jose
down the road from spartan
stadium. There's a stretch
of railroad tracks on south
seventh street. My dad played
along those tracks as a kid
growing up in san jose. With
humble beginnings and often
finding refuge there when
things got >> rough at home.
decades later my parents would
build valley's newest facility
along those very same tracks. A
full circle moment. I don't
think either of them could have
imagined at the time my parents
mike and monica met in san jose
when they were 16 and went on
to start the business in 1986.
at just 25 years old with one
truck hauling scrap metal and
junk cars around >> the bay
area 40 years later valley is
still proudly rooted right here
in san jose. Today we employ
nearly 100 people operate a c
and disposal facility and
provide site services for some
of the bay area's largest
events including the two
concerts that were held right
outside these doors. My three
sisters and I grew up in the
yard with our parents.
eventually a few of us along
with our husbands found our own
places within the business. >>
and now my two sons I see >>
here are growing up there too.
but when >> I think about what
has allowed valley to be here
for 40 years, the story isn't
really about >> our family.
it's >> about the people who
built this company alongside us
. From the beginning my parents
believed in giving people an
opportunity to work including
those looking for a second
chance or simply needing
someone to take a chance on
them. We watched people turn
those opportunities into
careers, become leaders within
our company, support their
families, buy their first
homes, start businesses
of their own. And even retire
after decades with valley. For
some those milestones may have
once felt out of reach. That's
what our purpose >> empowering
lives enhancing communities
means to us and creating
opportunities for people and
being there for the community
that has been there for us. >>
so while our family is
incredibly proud to accept this
commendation, we accept it on
behalf of our employees past
and present. They are the
people who made valley what it
is. 40 years ago my dad was the
kid who found refuge along
those tracks on south seventh
street. Today my children are
growing up on that same ground.
san jose is where my parents
story began where valley's
story began and where we hope
the next generation will
continue it. Thank you to
councilmembers mulcahy, dewan,
mayor mason and the city
council for this recognition.
we're incredibly grateful to
call san jose home. Thank you
>>
. Just so we can get away
. Bye bye. All right. We're on
to our third and final
ceremonial item for today.
kills for our compost. If you
would join me at the podium. We
will recognize as jaycee's
air traffic controllers. >>
thank you, mayor, and good
afternoon everyone. Whenever we
are flying >> in or out of san
jose, do you ever think about
the many people who make our
journey possible? Today we
celebrate >> and recognize the
work of air traffic
controllers. These are the men
and women who keep airplanes
at safe distances >> from each
other and prevent them from
colliding. Thanks to our
air traffic controllers nearly
12 million annual passengers
travel safely through san jose
mineta airport. Being an air >>
traffic controller requires
exceptional levels
of concentration and
communication to ensure
aircrafts can take off and land
safely and in spite
of adversary and I'm sorry
adverse adversity like staff
shortages or government
shutdowns. Our air traffic
controllers show up sometimes
going weeks without pay. And
during the most recent
government shutdown several
local organizations stepped up
and provided different levels
of assistance to this group
of federal workers for which I
am deeply, deeply grateful to
all of the neighbors who showed
up for our community and
supported our air traffic
controllers here in san jose.
we often don't get to see,
interact or think the people
who make our air travel
possible. And it's my hope that
>> with this commendation we
are demonstrating a small token
of our appreciation for the
hard work and at times
sacrifice that our air traffic
controllers make to ensure that
we get to our destinations
safely. So today we are joined
by alex coronado and colby
saunders of san jose mineta
airport. And now I'd like to
invite victor ramirez to share
a few words and accept this
commendation on behalf of the
air traffic controllers here
at san jose. Thank you so >>
much. I didn't have a speech
friday. I came straight from
work today but I truly
appreciate it. We are the ones
behind the scenes. When you
talk about aviation, when
you're taking a flight you
always think about the pilot
because you see the pilot. He's
the one that greets you the
ticket agent. They're the ones
to collect your tickets. But
you forget about the behind the
scenes. So I truly appreciate
it. And all the air traffic
controllers are grateful for
this opportunity to kind of be
in the limelight. I know
sometimes tragic accidents do
bring us to the limelight and
that's one of the things that
did bring us the limelight with
the accident. But even during
this shutdown we truly
appreciate all the
organizations, agencies,
companies that came out support
it whether it was lunch,
coffee. So we do appreciate
that because yeah, being on the
shutdown for 40 days plus
without pay, it made a lot
of impact on our families and
our daily lives. So we are so
grateful and remember next time
you guys are flying or going to
your destination, there's
people behind the scenes that
do a lot of this work and try
and make sure that we get you
guys there safely, smoothly.
hopefully don't blame us for
being delayed. It's not us.
most of the time it's whether
but the pilots will blame the
air traffic controllers. But
thank you again >>
for
all right. Thank you all very
much. We are on to orders
of the day. Do any colleagues
have suggested changes to
today's printed agenda? For
casey. >> yes. I'd like to pull
item 10.1 please. Okay. That's
off land use concern. Okay.
well, when we get to ladies
consent, we will do that. You
know, appreciate the heads up.
any other changes to the
printed agenda? Not seeing any.
we do have an adjournment today
. >> today will be adjourning
today's meeting in honor
of father peter pabst sj. Today
I want to take a moment to
remember and honor the life
of father peter pabst who
passed away in may. A man whose
faith, compassion, humor and
unwavering belief in young
people touched countless
countless lives here in
san jose. Father peter gerard
pabst was born in saint paul,
minnesota in 1954 and his
impact here in san jose began
in 1986. After being ordained a
priest in san francisco. Part
of his ministry included
serving at bellarmine and as a
resident minister at santa
clara university. Experiences
that helped him find his gift
for connecting with young
people, helping them see
possibilities for their lives
that they couldn't yet see for
themselves. That gift was
at the heart of his most
important life life's work. In
2000 father pabst founded the
sacred heart nativity school's
opening new doors for students
from low income families. Then
in 2013 he took on another
ambitious mission as the
founding present of crystal
rey, san jose's jesuit high
school. Father pabst believed
deeply that a family's income
should never determine whether
a young person has access to an
excellent education or the
opportunity to build a bright
future. Under his leadership as
founding present and later as
chancellor crystal rose,
san jose has helped hundreds
of students become the first in
their families to attend
college. That is an
extraordinarily legacy. But
anyone who knew father pabst
knows that his impact can't be
measured just by the
institutions he built or the
number of students who he
helped get on the path to
college. Service was deeply
personal to him. He found
tremendous joy in people. He
was proud of his students and
alumni and those who supported
them and he stayed connected
with former students long after
they graduated, sometimes even
officiating their weddings. His
warmth, infectious energy and
sense of humor made people feel
welcome while his faith
inspired them to believe in
themselves and what was
possible for their lives. Today
we honor father pabst not only
for his service and what he
built but for how he made
people feel seen, supported,
encouraged and loved. On behalf
of the city of san jose, I want
to extend our deepest
condolences to father papp's
family to the many students,
colleagues, friends and loved
ones whose lives he profoundly
touched. And now I'd like to
invite carla quinto, a crystal
alum, to share a few words
about father pabst. >> welcome.
thank you. I recently had a
question posed to me and that
is who have you met >> that
changed the course of your
life? For me it was a man who
had a vision of providing
resources, access and
opportunity to kids in
san jose. Reverend peter patz
believed that education was the
great equalizer to give these
students a chance to get out
of poverty. In 2012, reverend
peter pappas became the present
of christ the san jose jesuit
high school where he continued
to wear many hats to support
the school's mission to help
students get to and through
college and to be set on a path
toward a sustainable,
fulfilling future. Under his
leadership, 100% of christa rey
alums have been admitted to
four year universities with
most the first in their
families to pursue higher
education. They start their
college career with
professional experience gained
through a corporate work study
program that partners with
companies across multiple
industries in silicon valley
including nonprofit kids, tech
giants, health care and
educational institutions where
students work for one day a
week obtaining valuable
communication organization and
interpersonal skills needed in
the workplace. I had the
opportunity to graduate from
chris array's inaugural class
in 2018 where I graduated with
over 1000 hours of work
experience as an internet cisco
systems and acceptance and
scholarship to santa clara
university. I've since grown in
my career at stanford
university for the past four
and a half years where I am a
talent development coordinator
helping our staff grow
professional li and obtain
skills meaningful to their
careers. >> and in 2024 I
started my own small business
providing career coaching for
early in career first
generation professionals where
I have been able to help over
100 people understand and
navigate the job search process
. But I'm not the only one who
has been able to reap the
benefits of getting access to
the resources christopher array
provided for its students as
over 150 alumni have been hired
by christopher wray work city
partners for internships and
professional work. With
christopher, his fifth
graduating >> class earning
degrees from four year colleges
this year, alumni are entering
the workforce not only with a
degree but extensive work
experience and a professional
network of mentors and
champions. None of this would
have been possible without
reverends peter papp's vision
to create opportunities for
students in east san jose. His
passion to serve
under-resourced families should
be recognized and and
remembered for its
extraordinary >> impact on the
community. I'm proud to be an
alumna from christa ray and I'm
thankful for reverend papp's
contributions to make dreams
possible for many students and
families in san jose. Thank
you. Thank >> you. We really
appreciate you being here to
share how father pabst impacted
your life and that of hundreds
of other students I know we're
also joined by leaders jesuit
school leaders, educators,
staff >> from santa clara
university, christopher wray,
jesuit high school and sacred
heart nativity schools. I just
want to thank you all for being
here. If you'd like to stand
up, we'll just thank you for
your service in our community.
I know peter papp's had a big
impact on your lives. You don't
have to stand up but thank you
all for being >> here and thank
you again for being here to
help honor a great man who had
an incredible impact on our
community. We're going to move
on now to our >> close session
report. >> thank you, mayor.
nothing to report from closed
session today. Okay. Thank >>
you. So we I know we have a
number of folks here who want
to comment on an item coming up
a little later. I do since we
have folks who may not have
been here in the past, I just
want to note that if you would
like to speak it would we would
appreciate if you would fill
out a comment >> card. Our
clerk will call out your names.
the comment cards are down here
at the bottom of the
ampitheater seating and there's
and also up at the top. So if
you would fill out a card and
make clear which item on the
agenda you want to speak on
that will help us be more
efficient. Thank you all. Next
is the consent calendar. Are
there any items council members
would like to pull from consent
? Not seen >> any. Do we have a
motion so I can. Great. Thank
you toni. Do we have public >>
comment on the consent
calendar? Yes >> I do. I have
currently three cards in person
and five hands online before I
call names as a reminder,
speakers must comply with the
city's code of conduct for
public meetings. Please direct
comments to the body limit
remarks to the agenda item. In
this case it's the consent
calendar as a whole even if you
submitted more than one card
for an item you will speak one
minute on all of the items.
conduct that materially
disrupts the meeting or
interferes with others ability
to participate may result in
muting or removal as authorized
by law. If you are
participating by telephone you
press star nine to raise your
hand and I actually see the
three cards I have in person
are for the same person. So
america please come on down.
you have one minute to speak on
all three items and then online
I'll move to dave followed by
blair >>
and that's all I need to get
and I know I want to get
everybody am I'm sorry if you
want to speak on this item you
can come down. You will have
one minute. The agenda is
posted online as always >> I
understand you have one minute
on this item. This is the
consent calendar. >> okay. I'm
going to go ahead and move up
to the online. Go >> to online
first. Go ahead, dave followed
by blair. Go ahead, dave
followed by blair dave,
go ahead, kay. I'm going >> to
move on to blair followed by
connie. >> hi blair beekman boy
it's nice to appear on zoom
again here in san jose. I'm
living in san diego for the
past four years. Thank you for
working with the state
of california to allow zoom
again and hopefully we can have
a hopeful good public decorum
and public process with the
future of zoom. It's a real
good democratic community too.
thank you. >> I wanted to
comment on the northern
california regional
intelligence center that you
are going to be approving
today. I hope there can be a
comment from your someone from
council what exactly we are
doing with the future of nick
rick things they've just been
caught with san francisco you
know giving federal agencies
carte blanche to data
collection practices and
they've been spying on people
and spying on our immigrant
communities in really large
numbers. What is southeast
response to that? How are you
going to work on that? And I'll
talk more about this item at a
connie followed by america in
person. Hello, my name is
connie. Good morning mayor and
council members I am speaking
on consent item ten dot 1ai am
county I'm sorry we're not on
the the land use consent right
now so those people who are
online if you're here to speak
about 10.1 a we're going to get
to that next so I would thank
you. Okay. I'm going to
go ahead and go to america here
in person. I'm >> speaking to
three items today regarding
northern california regional
intelligence center. It has
something to do with your >>
citizens quality of life.
therefore it is illegal to put
this under a consent agenda.
your staff is trying to do it
under the radar pass so nobody
knows what you guys are trying
to do with the intelligence
center that needs to be put to
be discussed. I wish to pour
that I also wish to poor
resilience facility coalition
adoption for the four climate
bond readiness that concerns
your citizens property taxes >>
you're trying to make a pay
more taxes again and she is
again trying to pass this under
the radar. I wish to pull that
for your citizens to discuss in
open public discussion. I also
wish to pull your heritage tree
list to be discussed because
heritage tree list has >>
sentimental feelings and values
to your citizens who are
founding citizens. So just >>
okay that's your time bryan >>
online followed by not fine in
person I think the applause may
have drowned out that I called
a person. Can you hear me okay?
yeah. Hold on, bryan. After
after bryan is not fine. Come
on down. Go ahead, bryan. >>
thank you, ma'am. I would I
sent a letter about the tree
thing and I know we're going to
be sticking to one minute. I
would like to remind everybody
that mr. Bateman has been
bringing up the security issues
and data being shared for many,
many, many, many, many, many,
many, many, many years and for
many, many, many, many years
mr. Beekman has been ignored
and he has been correct pretty
much about all of it. And so
now people are councils are
having to go back and finish. I
would just humbly suggest that
maybe people listen to us just
once in a while. That's not a
rude I'm sorry that make it
clearer that you're hearing it.
thank you. >> thank you. Not
fine. Did you come down? It's
anonymous. It just is not fine
for the name. Okay. I'm going
to move on to alec again. This
is for regular consent, not
10.1 alec online. No, sorry. I
think I'm in for the other one
that you can pass. Okay. For
now >> and then amy, that are
you also 10.1. Hi, can you hear
me now I'm talking about >>
public safety and the data
centers. Okay, go ahead. >>
my name is amy. I grew up in
santa clara county and I'm a
survivor of a live torture
basement. I was placed in
special victims unit and I've
been in relocation programs for
25 years. I've been trying to
join in reports of child
trafficking and at the san jose
pd lobby who have been blocking
me time and time and time again
internal affairs picked up
my case and then they did an
investigation. They found out
the police officers were found
guilty >> and disciplined. And
to this day I still haven't
been able to enter in my in
my evidence and withholding
evidence from the multistate
investigation naming my abuser
as I suspect is called
obstruction of justice and I'm
receiving violent retaliation.
>> okay. Thank you. And the
in-person speaker didn't come
down so I'm going to go back to
counsel. That's all. Okay,
great. I just want to note for
the record since we have a
number of people here and I
heard some applause that item
two nine which is on consent is
a very simple and very small
reimbursement from the county
of san mateo to our police
department for services we
rendered it related to
intelligence around human
trafficking and terrorism. It's
a pretty routine item probably
doesn't need a lot
of discussion or debate and the
other is the ability for the
city to apply for grant funding
for some resilience work that
we'd be doing. Also a very
modest amount of money. So
that's why we have a consent
calendar is to be efficient and
allow time for the public to
comment and for us to discuss
and debate the big policy
questions that this council
needs to weigh in on. So don't
want anyone to think we're
hiding the ball here. So on the
consent calendar and the items
that have been posted since
last week we had a motion to
have any further discussion,
not seen any. So toni, let's
vote on the consent calendar
please
. >> motion passes unanimously
. Okay. Thank >> you. So we're
on to the land use consent
calendar and councilor akc I
think requested to poll and
comment on item 10.1 a is that
>> correct? Hillsborough a case
to the floor is yours. Thank >>
you, mayor. Just a couple
of questions for staff if
they're available I'll start
while you guys are coming down.
so the current pd there's some
question as to whether or not
it designates the permanent
open space for the 565 acres
and how this conforming
rezoning would impact that.
thank you. Councilmember chris
burton, director of planning
building code enforcement. We
brought a whole cast
of characters to answer your
questions. So currently there's
a pd zoning in place. It's an
older zoning that allowed for
the specific prior use which
was the I-beam almaden research
facility on a portion of this
site and then the balance
of that pd zoning preserved
open space you know in the 500
plus acres surrounding it.
since then obviously we've
updated the general plan the
underlying general plan
designations to be consistent
with that under the research
facility we included the ip,
the industrial park designation
and so this rezoning would
preserve both the open spaces,
open space and then the
research park as ip or
industrial park moving forward.
so we believe it's it's
consistent with the general
plan approvals that have
already taken place and
consistent with the types
of uses that we've seen
historically on this side. >>
okay. So to be clear, the open
space, the 565 acres will
remain permanent open space
with this. Okay. And then the
second is as it relates to the
potential for the industrial
portion of the 35 acres or so
to be at some point a data
center and how this conforming
rezoning would impact that. >>
so the conforming rezoning
would allow uses consistent
with the industrial park
designation which include data
center with the issuance of a
special use permit. So that's a
discretionary permit that
requires full clearance and
would go to a director's
hearing with public outreach
and the opportunity for the
public to comment. It's then
appealable to the planning
commission from that point so
>> to be clear they would still
have to apply they would still
go through a process that would
include public input and this
does not rubber stamp that a
data center being built there.
that's correct. There is some
conversations about having
citywide guidelines as they
apply to data centers. Would
this in any way prevent this
project's the potential data
center from conforming to those
guidelines or being involved?
it would not know so I would
check with staff but I believe
we have received an application
at this point and we don't
receive so we haven't received
an application at this point.
we have received I think a
prelim and had discussions with
applicants considering the use
you know typically a special
use permit could range anywhere
from you know, 6 to 9 months
for a typical process to the
extent that it involves an
environmental impact report
which again a lot of the data
centers that we're processing
require a full environmental
impact report and it would
likely take considerably
longer. And so the approval for
that special use permit would
likely come after the adoption
of the city wide standards on
data centers. Great. Thank you.
that's it for me, mayor. Thank
you. Thanks, councilmember.
appreciate it. Let me turn to
council for a comment. Thank
you. On the same item I'm just
wondering if there are
objective planning standards
and why is this coming to us
now? >> good afternoon munir
cynthia, deputy director
of planning. So the conforming
rezoning is an obligation and
therefore it's being brought to
council. We do have design
standards for projects that
would come in the future at the
site but the rezoning only
allows for consistency between
the existing zoning on site and
the general plan designation so
it expands the kinds of uses
that could be allowed there
under the industrial park
general plan land use
designation but without an
application it's hard to say
what kind of design standards
would apply. Right. So >> I'm
just wondering we received
information from several groups
that are very concerned about
this and perhaps it's just a
matter of understanding what
this is and what this is not.
and so they have asked for a
deferral and since there's no
urgency to this and there's no
project to this, would a 30 day
sort of a sort of hold be a
problem? Oh yeah. I think it
might be worth asking the
applicant I think the applicant
has put this proposal in to
identify a clearer path of what
kind of uses could be allowed
on that side. So there is a
project so there is a project
not at the moment.
councilmember >> if I can just
expand on this. So obviously
ibm have decided to dispose
of the site. There's been a
number of conversations that
have been in play regarding
this property around the future
use. So as the need to be on
your side so the property owner
ibm who owns the facility is
looking to dispose of the site
right? So they're no longer
continuing their operations. So
we've had a number of different
groups that have inquired about
different types of uses on this
site. So it's very typical that
we would see on a project like
this that the applicant would
reason the property, you know,
to make it consistent with the
general plan and allow the full
range of uses. As I said
earlier when it was previously
adopted it was a very narrow
pre zoning that you know just
included research and
development. So they're looking
to you know, maximize the
opportunity through sale of the
site so they're going to sell
the property is that they are
going to sell the property?
yes, that's my understanding.
okay. And it would it's >> more
valuable if the zoning is
different >> so that I mean I'm
just wondering like what the
urgency is to this. Right. And
so I don't because we've been
we've >> been asked we've been
asked to consider deferring
this to allow for more and you
know more the groups who are
concerned about it more
information. Right. So I'm just
I'm just sort of weighing you
know, if there's no urgency
there are no objective planning
standards, you know, like
what's the rush? >> so you
know, from our perspective
we're just trying to move
applications through on a
timely basis. I think as munir
stated, I would encourage you
to ask that question of the
applicant. >> okay? And I'm
going to give the applicant
five minutes as soon as
council's secondary questions.
okay? Okay great councilmember
we'll wait for the applicant.
yeah. Okay. Any other
preliminary questions? Okay. So
as is our practice with land
use items the applicant will
have five minutes then we'll
go to public comment and we'll
come back we'll come back to
the council. >> eric
and
to toni. Are we just waiting to
get something up on the screen?
yes. Okay. There >> we go.
okay. You'll have five minutes.
>> all right. Thank you, mayor
mehan, members of the council.
my name is eric shay. Now I
represent the the >> ibm site
rezoning. First of all, we want
to thank city staff for all
their time to get the
application here. We have two
parallel goals on this effort.
one is to preserve the open
space as it exists today. No
changes to the open space.
second, to allow the industrial
site to be put back into
economic use in an efficient
manner >> quickly >> a vacant
site would be susceptible >> to
vandalism and homeless starting
fires in the building which we
experience all over our city on
the screen. On the left >> is
the existing general plan which
is 565 acres of open space and
35 acres of industrial. On the
right is our proposed zoning
exactly the same 565 acres
of open space and 35 acres
of industrial park. This is
from the staff report. >> it's
appropriate to follow the
adopted general plan of the
city and the adopted zoning
code of the city. The image on
the screen is the san jose
zoning code. What it says is
when the general plan
designation is industrial park
which the 35 acres is then the
zoning should be ip on the
right side of the screen when
the general plant is open space
parkland and habitat then the
zoning should be open space ohs
zoning on the right side of the
screen. So all this request is
is to align the >> zoning with
the general plan. >> why is
this important? The property
needs to be brought into the
21st century. This is
specialized zoning for ibm was
adopted back in the 80s and is
very narrow >> just for
research and parking. And this
document looks like this image
is the actual >> general
development plan from the
zoning as you can >> see very
crude, very simple and it
leaves a lot of opportunities
off the table. So here are the
challenges and the protections
to attract investment and
financing. We have to have a
logical and predictable process
with no risks or roadblocks.
the current >> pd zoning is too
limited it just says research
leaving things off the table
and it's uncertain about what
the city would allow under
research and 17 acres
of parking that we probably
don't need anymore sample uses
in the current zoning >>
code that wouldn't be allowed
in >> the in the pd zoning >>
laboratory processing light
manufacturing and assembly
general office r&d office
medical office those >> are all
reasonable things that could be
done on this property but you
can't do it under the current
zoning. It's important to note
that any future >> proposals
that are special use or
conditional use would require
community engagement >> a
sequel review process, city
department review and public
hearing any >> future sequel
appeals on any of these future
decisions are appealable to the
city council. So in the end
of the day the city council is
in control and you have final
say what happens on the
property >> as far as zoning
and general plan only the city
council can ever change the
zoning in the general plan. So
if the zoning >> is open space
it remains open space until the
city council says otherwise. So
today the council can >> make a
clear statement by approving
this zoning that you want to
keep the 565 acres as open
space and >> you want >> the
industrial park area to be
successful by allowing it to
have modern zoning standards
that the modern world will
invest in. That's the urgency
is we're trying to attract
investment and financing so
that this property can be
repurposed since it's an old
property it can take a lot
of investment, a lot of work.
so that's the urgency so that
we can move the project and not
have an empty building out in
the open space that catches
fire and endangers the open
space and the city and the
neighborhood. With that I'm
available for any questions and
I've been involved with this
site for decades. I was council
member >> dan doe's chief
of staff when the housing
proposal came forward in 98 and
99 and so I know all about the
promise of open space and what
that all means. I'm happy to
give you that perspective if
you'd like. Thank you. Okay.
thank you. So for the applicant
I suggest we go to public
comment and come back for
council discussion in a motion
if that's if that's okay. Toni,
do you have comment cards on
this item? Yes, I have several.
let me read as a reminder
speakers must comply with the
city's code of conduct for
public meetings. Please direct
comments to the body limit
remarks to the agenda item and
observe the time limit conduct
that materially disrupts the
meeting or interferes with
others ability to participate
may result in meeting or
removal as authorized by law.
if you're participating by
telephone press star nine to
raise your hand. Additionally
we have about 30 speakers for
this item so we're asking that
instead of applause that you
show your support visually such
as jazz hands or thumbs up. So
that the speakers further down
the line don't have to wait
extra time for toni. Let
me emphasize that point. We
have a lot of folks here today
and particularly on the
following item we're going to
have a lot of strong emotions
for and against and it's going
to be a robust discussion in
the interest of respecting
everyone's first amendment
rights, allowing us to get to
that item and actually get out
of here before midnight and
have an efficient meeting. We
always ask folks to not cheer
or boo or just if you really
want to show your support you
can do this or whatever it is
you want to do but we want to
get through the meeting and not
keep you here all day. But we
do want to hear from you and we
don't want anyone to feel
pressured or intimidated. So
please note sharing or booing
let's let toni do her job and
let's get through public
comment. Go ahead, toni. Okay,
I'm >> going to call about five
names when you hear your name
go ahead and come on down.
first person to the microphone.
go ahead and speak. You do not
have to speak in the order that
you're called. Evan brooks
jessica larry ames, john come
on. If your name is hurt, if
you heard your name, go ahead
and line up over here. First
person in the microphone john
leavitt and cindy h. >> evan
brooks, adjoining property
owner. I want to address one
claim that the existing zoning
and the proposed zoning protect
this open space equally they do
not. Under the current pd
zoning ibm's own application
allocates 569 acres exclusively
to open space adding any other
use means amending the pd a
noticed hearing and a vote
of this council after the
rezoning the governing list
becomes the zoning codes
citywide use >> table for the
district grading and earth
removal mineral extraction and
quarrying golf courses and
shooting ranges are conditional
uses. They're requiring only a
use permit from the planning
commission and it reaches you
only if someone appeals and
only a property owner within
1000ft can appeal. Now that's
roughly 200 addresses and in
1999 alone 1250 residents
signed petitions about this
land. So today changing the use
of this hillside takes a vote
of this body. Tomorrow it takes
a use permit. This is not
equivalent. Please don't
approve this without a recorded
is >> that your time next
speaker I'm dan from d10. Come
on down and >> eric you're eric
or he spoke and monie >> I'm
jessica and I wrote all of you
asking that this rezoning
request be paused what is being
presented as a simple
conforming rezoning is more
nuanced and has many impacts
both to the open space and to
the industrial portions. In
december 1999 our city council
approved a motion to find a way
to protect ibm's open space in
perpetuity. Sadly that prior
counsel failed >> to complete
what it started but you must do
better in 2026. Do not make the
mistake of equating open space
zoning with permanent
protection. The word permanent
>> means nothing if the open
space is not legally tied to a
conservation easement, a land
trust or other binding
protection with no immediate
development proposal pending
you have the time to secure the
open space permanently for
future >> generations. Pause
the request now so that the
environmental, legal and land
use issues at stake get the
proper attention by city
leadership and the public.
thank you. Next speaker >> lena
come on down and america, your
letter >> your mike there you
go. This is on now. Okay. Larry
ames, I'm just here to make
sure that you consider this
property some I want to see the
open space preserved and if
it's just sound this way you
can change at any given
tuesday. So I want to see you
have an easement for >> it also
the development has to be in a
certain place. You don't want
to shift around any place up
there. It's right now it's
sheltered in a dip in the top
of mountains so it's hidden
from the surrounding areas so I
don't want it built anyplace
else other than there. I just
want to see you consider
listing property. You do not
want to be rushed through >>
here. Thank you. Thank you.
next >> speaker now go ahead.
I'm >> a resident of district
ten in almaden. I strongly
opposed the rezoning of the
property at its six 650 harry
road rezoning more than 600
acres of open space ibm land
break the city council's
original amendment commitment
to keep this land as a
permanent open space and
disregards >> the clear
opposition of the almaden
community. Although no formal
easement currently exists, the
responsible step is to defer
any decision until council
finalize the 1999 motion
protecting this land in
perpetuity with the same
concern applied to the 35 acre
proposed for industrial park
use. I'd respectfully ask that
this item be removed from the
consent calendar so the public
can foley participate. Please
read postpone action until the
permanent open space
protections the data center and
large energy project
regulations are complete by
this this you got your time
help helen >> brock come on
down and carol peacefully dear
leaders I am dan from d-10
please vote no to the proposed
rezoning of 650 harry road
san jose urgently needs to set
some standards to protect
residents from water and power
supply problems before we
continue permitting large data
centers or other redevelopment
to harry road where allowed >>
large data centers are driving
up regional power prices
hurting residents out competing
us for water to lake tahoe
region residents receive 13
months notice that their power
wholesaler will cut them off
because of a new data center
customer data center owners
must own their additional
generating capacity not buy it
on the market so residents will
pay for new supply and don't
pay for stranded generators
when the data centers shut down
water is critically short
supply so only closed loop
water circuits should ever be
approved. Okay, let's not have
a toxic release like erin
brockovich story. Okay.
san jose needs an emergency
project to define mitigation
for data centers over a
megawatt and should not rezone
to accommodate them until these
are in place. Thank you. Next
speaker. Josephine come on down
and then I have an anonymous
card. Please do not vote. Okay
or pass on this particular
item. I have no confidence in
the management nor the former
>> city council member who is
now a lobbyist for a real
estate shark that is on this
agenda an item such as this
zone change should not have
been I agenda raised under a
consent agenda which is
designed to escape public
scrutiny. Wealthy real estate
sharks deliberately bribe and
manipulate city government to
make american >> corporate fail
like stand most chevron
headquarters disclosure I'm not
suicidal and I drive safely all
the time. >> good afternoon
mayor and council members lena
drape with the santa clara
valley open space authority. We
are very grateful >> for
councilmember casey pulling
this item and for
councilmember kim for asking
several questions at the open
space authority and community
members have shared and
expressed our priority is >>
for request is for this item to
be deferred to allow critical
questions to be answered first.
first, we asked the city to
address the permanent
protection of the 565 acre
portion of open space on this
property that your council in
1999 directed staff to
permanently protect as a part
of mitigation for the ibm
development. While we
appreciate the confirmation
just previously provided from
staff open space zoning does
not equate to permanent
protection additional action is
needed such as through a
conservation easement. Second,
we understand that the city
needs to address general plan
inconsistencies. But as
previously alluded to there is
no reason that a rezoning for
this site must occur before a
project application as put
forward. Besides increasing the
perceived developable value for
resale preemptively rezoning >>
the site to enable. Thank >>
you that your time. I'd also
like to call sandy down it >>
please take the ibm property
off of the consent calendar.
there's discussion of data
center and as we all know or
have been informed data centers
use >> a lot of water and
electricity until san jose has
the opportunity to put
guidelines in place to protect
the public from misuse of that.
I'd like to see this put on
taken off the consent calendar
so that we can discuss it as
well as quite frankly the open
space. We have a critical sorry
everybody >> problem with
housing. So before we make >> a
general decision to block that
property off and put in a dated
for for open space and put in a
data center, let's >> have a
discussion about it all.
anyway, thank you. Thank you.
next >> speaker, I thank you
for your time. I'm looking
at this like it's not changing
the building >> structure and
we need housing and we need
jobs and different >> things
where it's not going to congest
the neighborhood or bring
pollutants or harmful things to
the community to consider maybe
having more housing. 51% of my
taxes go to property taxes
go >> to education. I don't
have a problem with that. If we
can approval what the children
are being taught I don't want
children being sexualized and
getting pregnant. I've been a
foster parent. I've had rehabs,
I've had different things. So
if we can upgrade the community
, not build big things in
people's backyard, the lady was
saying that someone who's not
even a national proposed a 750
bed right next to >> her. I
mean think what you want to
live where people are and
there's no >> set backs. We
have to be practical that's
going to congested
neighborhood. There's enough
open land >> that we can
consider it but if we can
utilize this property that's
been sitting >> there and
rotting for how long? I used to
work at ibm. >> thank you. That
your time? Next speaker good >>
afternoon. My name is marni.
I'm an attorney and a san jose
resident. My work is
constitutional and antitrust
litigation which means I read
regulations for a living and
tell a court whether it sweeps
too far or too little. I've
read the city's proposed
framework >> and I fear it's
one that should concern this
council and your constituents.
two gaps stand out. First,
there's no enforcement
backbone. If a data center
violates its terms pollutes
water exceeds noise limits
there's no clear review process
and no real consequence.
second, there's no aftercare
provision. Nothing addresses
what happens when an operator
simply decides to up and leave.
so my question to this city
council is what regulatory
story do you >> want to tell?
thank you. >> thank you. Next
speaker. Yeah. This city has
lobbied sacramento for speed
cameras, red light cameras,
road diets, flock cameras and
everything else. What >> you
need to lobby sacramento for is
a better utility grid. Pagani
doesn't have it. Everybody
knows it. If you think that
you're >> going to run a data
center here. I got it. I
got a bridge to sell you. It's
not >> going to work. I saw a
smile from the mayor there. And
yeah, I mean you don't have you
can't even turn a fan on when
it gets hot and your power goes
out. Do you really think you're
going to build this? I mean >>
it sounds great. I mean imagine
the water bill they're going to
get. Anybody got their water
bill >> lately with $150
surcharge? Can't imagine what
it would be like for a data
center. Oh yeah. They're going
to recycle the water. Sure they
are. Right. It's not >> going
to work. You know what? Maybe
turn this place into a data
center? I don't know. But
anyway, everybody vote no on
new data centers until you have
proper >> electro proper
electrical grid. It's >> just
that simple. That's your time.
next speaker I've called all
of the in-person cards that I
received for this item. If you
did not hear your name please
line up. I'm going to move on
to the virtual commenters next.
go >> ahead. Hello, my name is
sandy and I'm a long term
resident of almaden valley.
first I want to thank council
member casey for hearing the
voices of your constituents and
removing the proposed rezoning
of 650 harry from the consent
calendar and allowing for some
public >> discussion. However I
want >> everyone to know that I
am still very concerned >> that
we may be making a decision
today. I would like to thank I
think it was councilmember may
>> for asking some astute
questions. Thank you. But the
issue is one of many that many
or a significant number
of aluminum valley residents
are still not aware of this
rezoning or even this meeting
today. I >> am one of less than
100 people >> who received the
postcard at the >> start
of good time. I'm steve. Come
on down
. >> my name is steve martin. I
am a geothermal developer. I'm
manoora educated redneck with a
couple of bachelors from
stanford and I developed
geothermal power the last year
thermal plant I developed in
nevada is supplying power to
sacramento. The reason I bring
this up today is that this
rezoning issue deals with
carbon because we don't know
who the bidder or the contract
party is. We're not sure what's
going to happen in terms of the
power source for the data
center that they intend to put
in there. We want to know if we
can here today who the bidder
will be and I have provided for
the council's view some things
that would happen if there were
a new bidder that had a very
progressive program to offer.
so I've listed the kinds
of things that we would propose
to do out there which would add
thank >> you that your time
next speaker I'm sorry that
your time. Hello, my >> name is
jasmine jordan. I would like to
remind this council and the
mayor of their responsibility
to their constituents and not
to corporate spokespeople like
eric shen over of ibm during
his five minutes of speaking he
focused on the point that the
acreage of the ibm industrial
park will remain the same. But
that does not mean that the
energy usage of the proposed
whatever it is will stay the
same. He wants to speed up
rezoning for some project but
he did not specify what and he
wants it to pass before
regulations. I would like to
urge this council to put a
pause on this rezoning until
after regulations are passed.
he mentioned bringing into
modern times and tax revenue
investment we can also generate
tax revenue from increasing a
corporate tax and on
billionaires. Yeah that's it.
thank you. Thank you, mr.
speaker. When I go to public
comment brian it will be
followed by alice. So brian
at home be prepared. Go ahead.
hello. >> there has been a lot
of secrecy around the
development of the data centers
over the past several months if
not years. At first it was. Are
there any applicants? No, there
aren't any applicants. But
here's the applicant. He's
going to speak for five
minutes. Clearly data centers
are being discussed and
developed outside of public
meetings and private
conversations without public
input. Rezoning is already
being moved to the table
without any applicants without
any applications. The public
needs to have not just input.
they need to have decision on
whether data centers are built
in >> their communities. Just
>> saying oh we're going to
have a public input that can
mean a lot of things. I've been
part of public input sessions.
they're very small. They don't
do a lot and it's not
guaranteed that public input
will be taken into account. So
please hold off on rezoning
this. Thank you. >> thank you,
brian. First of all, if you use
a cell phone or you youtube or
anything else or stuff like
this if you're using a data
center. So we eventually have
to find a way to I agree it
shouldn't have been put on the
consent calendar. Thank you for
pulling that off you. When I
saw that it was being pulled
off and the consent calendar I
almost fell out of my chair
here because usually I don't
think people read the letters
and that's something I wish I I
don't know. Toni has a hard job
so I appreciate what you're
trying to do. My email said
that and everybody else that
far better than I did. Thank
you >> alice followed by alec I
good afternoon may or may
hammond council members this is
alice kaufman for green
foothills and I want to bring
your attention to an issue that
has not been mentioned yet and
we mentioned it in a letter
that we submitted but with all
the public comment you may not
have seen it. So there is a new
state law sb 131 which creates
a total exemption from sequel
for advanced manufacturing
facilities but only if they are
located on industrially zoned
parcels. So under the current
pd zoning this total exemption
does not apply but once it's
rezone to industrial park it
would apply and this advanced
manufacturing facility
exemption is an extremely broad
and vague category of uses. It
includes metal recycling,
semiconductor manufacturing,
lithium battery manufacturing,
aerospace and defense
manufacturing and more. So this
is why we're asking for this
item to move forward. We really
want to work with staff to
figure out a way to make sure
that square will continue to
apply to a project as was
stated previously that it would
apply. Thank you >> alec
followed by dashiell. >> hello.
I support permanently
protecting the open space
surrounding the former ibm site
but that is not all that this
rezoning would do. While
approximately 565 acres would
receive the open space zoning,
another 35 acres would receive
broader industrial park zoning
which could open the door to
manufacturing advanced
manufacturing or even a data
center with a special use
permit. At the same time the
city would eliminate more than
40 years of site specific plans
development controls without
telling the public exactly what
protections would be lost. We
also do not know whether the
city ever fulfilled its
commitment to secure permanent
legal protection from the
surrounding open space, open
space zoning alone is not
permanent. There's no
development application
pending. There's no
demonstrated urgency and once
these protections are removed
recovering them is difficult.
please remove this item from
the consents and delay rezoning
until the existing protections
environmental consequences
access road restrictions and
permanent preservation of the
open space are foley addressed.
thank you. From an olive
garden resident >> dashiell
followed by linda hutchins. >>
hello, my name is daniel leeds.
I'm a stint as a resident and
the conservation coordinator
for the sierra club loma prieta
chapter. We ask you >> to defer
rezoning this property as many
community members have already
told you. We're concerned that
rezoning this land to
industrial park could lead to
data centers and other harmful
industrial uses to be built in
this really sensitive area. The
city and our communities
deserve full disclosure and
consideration of the legal,
environmental and land use
consequences of this rezoning.
more community engagement and
disclosure is needed at a
minimum and you know the city
really needs to put its foot
forward and disclose its behind
the scenes work that it's doing
on data centers and other
industrial projects because we
know that there's a lot
happening >> that you just
simply aren't telling us until
it's too late. So the city
needs to do a better job
of disclosing that internal
work that it's engaging in >>
every week. Thank you. >>
darina followed by alice. >>
hi. This >> is serena. I'm a
san jose resident. I'm from
district six but I wanted to
come and just say I'm I'm in
support of open space and
protecting habitat and
especially this area is a very
botanically interesting area
because go and experience the
land. I mean if you if you're
standing out there and open and
you can see the poppies on this
hillside, it's incredible. And
I'm concerned about industrial
development in this area and
specifically datacenters and
how is that going to impact the
habitat and just echoing what
we're ours was saying about
ceca and you know these
loopholes that people are
trying to get through so please
protect open space and defer
the rezoning. Thank you alice
>> followed by dave. >> hello.
can you hear me? Yes. Okay. I'm
highly skeptical. The claim
made by the proponent of this
rezoning that school will be
applied when a specific project
is considered. No doubt
developers will take advantage
of the new school loophole in
the new school exemption that
was opened by sb 131 for the
very poorly defined category
advanced manufacturing to build
without any sequel review. The
council should remove this item
from the consent calendar. This
has received only the most
cursory consideration and do
not make a rezoning definition
decision until thorough study
and solicitation of community
community input has been done.
thank you dave followed by
linda. >> dave, are you there?
okay, I'm going to go to linda.
good afternoon. Council this is
linda hutchins and with mothers
out front silicon valley we ask
you not to defer the decision
on rezoning. Thank you to
councilmember casey for pulling
this item and the council her
committee for inquiring about
deferring the rezoning. This is
too consequential a decision to
rush. It's essential that you
at first apparently protect the
open space since open space
zoning is not permanent. Don't
be fooled by reassurances that
it's not really a zoning
change. Research in parking is
much less impactful on habitat
than other industrial uses. I
want to echo alice kaufman's
concern about sb 131 the state
law that exempts all quote
advanced manufacturing
facilities from sequa. This is
opening the pandora's box.
don't let that happen. There's
no rush. Take your time to
totally understand the impacts
of your decisions. I want to
conclude with some comments
that you know from open space
stories don't have time to
finish and her comment
basically me because the
current zoning is consistent
with the general plan and that
it allows us the uses with the
designation seek review as
necessary for you to even
change the zoning of the
status. >> sherry followed by
blair
as you heard me. Yes. Hi, this
is nick limehouse with the
santa clarita valley bird
alliance. We sent you a joint
letter with expressed several
concerns and we're remain
concerned. I would like to
reiterate and emphasize the
comments made here regarding
the impacts of sb 131. This law
exemptions and advancement
factoring projects that are
proposed on industrial lease on
land from secure and this is
very consequential for the
community. Both the
environmental community but
also all the residents and all
the wildlife and open space in
that area. I would like to
point out that the general plan
specifically allows pd zoning
to continue or to be on places
that have unusual
characteristics and the ibm
campus does have unusual
character. This has been is why
so many people are here even
though this was supposed to be
a consent item. So robust
community outreach is needed.
there followed by sue >> hi
where beekman. I hope I don't
step on anyone's toes to try to
address kind of the mechanics
of this item. The planning
director seems to be saying
that you guys need to have a >>
a review process, a permit
process in order for an open
democratic process to take
place where council person
command other council persons
may feel that this needs a bit
more discussion and time and we
can't and it can't be right. So
a real good luck that I'm on
the side of this item sort
of item not be rushed and we
work towards an open public
meeting process to really
decide the future of digital
centers for ourselves. The
zoning questions of this item I
suppose kind of like the flea
market item where we have a
community process to help build
what can be the future of this
area and not go straight to the
permit process in order to
solve the issue. Thank you >>
sue followed by roland. Hi. I
lived within half a mile of the
entrance to this property for
over 30 years. I'd like to
point out that if the rezoning
request for ibm is granted
today the data center
application can then be quickly
submitted before new rules are
announced which will exempt the
data center from the regulatory
oversight. The city is
currently formalizing. Please
delay defer consideration
of this rezoning request until
after new data center rules
have been completed and are in
force. For development on this
property really needs to be
done with full disclosure
community input and clear
rules. This is an inappropriate
forum for the magnitude
of issues that this land use
and its history represent to
the public and to the city.
please defer this decision.
this needs to be made with
careful consideration and input
from almaden valley residents.
roland >> followed by connie.
good afternoon >> mayor and
council. My name is roland. I
live in santa teresa one mile
from bernal road. I actually
support the applicants request
but I also support everybody
else's request for hearing this
at a later date. I used to work
for ibm. This research center
was used as an r&d and
laboratory for the last 40
years. It is supported by a
massive data center from day
one but nobody outside ibm
knows about it because the data
center is actually inside the
building. Now with regards to
cooling, these data centers
were so powerful that 40 years
ago ibm used them at night to
burn in thermal conduction
module because they were the
first computers that used water
for cooling. Last thing I would
like a little row to be
reopened so that we can drive
from santa teresa to almaden
valley. Thank >> you connie.
followed by jessica. Hello,
my name is connie. Good
morning, mayor and council
members. I urge council to
defer the rezoning of the
former ibm almaden research
center and I ask for extensive
community outreach. It is clear
that many development groups
have been discussing ibm's
sale. Therefore it is critical
to allow community input as
well and to take the steps to
permanently protect the area.
as it was originally planned,
many people have spoken on this
and have left you with enough
information to realize that you
really need to stop and think
before you make a decision on
this. Thank you, jessica.
followed by dr. Carla jessica
martinez. >> hello? Can you
hear me? Yes, hi. This just I'm
here to ask for this to be
postponed after hearing the
gentleman from ibm speak.
speak. It is more clear to slow
this process down and there is
no need to rush. We have
already seen what is happening
to our city by the sale of the
land of great america. Just
like that land with the what do
you call it the proposal the
person that bought it most
likely will turn that into a
data center or warehouses. We
don't need to sell this land
and give up what beauty we
have. Thank you, dr. Carlo
followed by correct. >> >>
hello? Can you hear me? Yes.
okay. Yes. So I am a something
, isn't it? And I'm definitely
opposed to the data centers and
pushing this through now we
already know just looking
at the news in different cities
that are currently have data
centers that they are posing
air pollution issues, energy
consumption emission issues,
water consumption issues,
public health issues. So we
don't need to make any rash
decisions we need to everyone
have a say and what why not
just use keep the land as it is
like that's what we need to do
and thank you >> kat >>
followed by jill follow. Can
you guys hear me? Yes. Hi, I'm
katrina. I'm also known as cat
and I urge the city council to
defer this item and prioritize
the long term well-being of san
jose residents over short term
economic gains or create
lasting environmental
degradation, health impacts and
water scarcity that our
community cannot afford. I
respectfully demand that the
council to explicitly exclude
data center development from
this rezoning decision until
the city has set in stone
standards with legally binding
enforcement delving into the
cumulative public health impact
analysis of planned and
proposed data centers and
established and has established
community protection with
legally binding consequences as
core requirements. Thank you
for listening and thank you for
your time today. >> thank you
jill followed by dave. I worked
>> at ibm starting back in
1989. I was at the actually
at the santa teresa laboratory
but we had frequent meetings
over and sometimes over
dominant plus so some friends
were over there. We'd go over
there a lot and go hiking, take
walks in that area. >> the
thing is I want to point out
that even if it's quote only
end quote a 35 acre area that
there talking about presently
for industrial use you can't
have the >> road that's there
now is a road a two lane road
for ordinary vehicles.
obviously if there's a new
development there, new
industrial uses the road would
be completely would have to
change and widen and everything
like that plus I just want to
point out it's a foolish idea
to have a foolish place for
industrial development is right
in the middle of hundreds
of acres of open space. Thank
you very much >> dave followed
by vince venkata dave I your
side I can hear you this time.
>> okay thank you. Sorry about
that. They pushed a resident
of the santa teresa
neighborhood from the late 80s
until 93 when I became a
resident of almaden valley in
99 I had conversations with
my council member and probably
eric and participated in
community meetings about a
proposal for the development
of some of the ibm's open
space. The sale was canceled
when it became clear that ibm
had committed to a permanent
open space restriction as part
of the almaden research center
development the council
committed to permanent open
space in perpetuity. It's
critical in terms of public
governance protection of the
serpentine habitat, historic
bar and rock walls,
contribution to the quality
of the adjacent santa clara
teresa or santa teresa county
park that the open space
remains open space in
perpetuity. Please defer. Thank
you very much >> venkata >>
online followed by roberta
moore in person. So roberta
go ahead and come on down and
venkata go ahead. I see you're
on muted but we're not hearing
you. Okay. I'm >> going to
go to roberta moore in person.
hi. Thank you. I'm roberta
moore from d-10. And first I
want to acknowledge you for
setting standards for
environmental protections with
air data centers. I just want
some facts 800 and >> seven
160,000,116 million gallons >>
of water per year and
876,000,000 kilowatt >> hours
per year. So we have electrical
issues, water issues and we
have traffic issues out there.
so >> please make if you ignore
all this feedback please make
the company pay for this and
fix these problems and please
>> require they pay for >> in
house no water cooling system.
thank you >> katherine matheson
come on down
. >> hello. I've lived all
my life in cnn's say since 1950
we've lived in the same house
and in the rose garden and I
hate to see this proposal that
you're presenting happen and
destroy our historical
neighbors. There's so many
other ideas. I have a degree in
biology, ag and forestry and a
master's in landscape
architecture and helped
singapore create their gardens
city so I know what I'm talking
about >> different ideas put
housing >> under name >> I'm
sorry this is >> just the ibm
site I think you're talking
about the land use site and
we're taking up later today I'm
talking about what >> the this
item we're on is the ibm site
and the potential rezoning
of that one site. I think you
may be speaking to the general
plan review >> item. Oh, okay.
so that'll be coming up and I
throw >> down you can come back
>> up when we get to that I if
you're speaking to the ibm item
I'll give you the rest of your
time. I just you were talking
about housing and landscape I
think this is probably not the
ibm item >> I did great. Okay.
we'll come back to you when we
get to that item. Thank you,
toni. Do we have more public
speakers? So back >> to
council. Okay. All right. Well
>> thank you to everyone who
weighed in. We're coming back
to council. I did just want to
referenced it for those who may
not be following it as closely
specifically on data >>
centers, the council has
instructed city staff to
initiate a process over the
rest of this year of community
engagement starting with a
listening session this this
week and the in fact tomorrow
evening where well we already
have some of the strictest
standards in the country. The
idea is in every category
of concern can san jose be the
national leader and have the
highest standards and really
ensure that we're protecting
all of the interests the
community's expressed on the
specific site which is the ibm
facility out on harry road? I
do want to come back to the
council member for district ten
and give him the floor once
again and we'll continue with
the council deliberation.
councilmember casey thank >>
you, mayor. I want to thank
everybody that came out and you
folks on zoom as well. I know
this is an important piece
of property all the property is
important to san jose but the
open space component and the
fact that this is located in a
beautiful area I understand the
concern but I just want to ask
staff or the attorneys this is
an eventuality in terms of us
having to do this conforming
rezoning. If we don't do it
now, it's going to happen
eventually anyway correctly
correct. Sorry. Yes, that is
correct. So there's no stopping
this >> not at this moment. But
given >> that, is there a way
that we can somehow direct
staff to pursue the easement
for the conservation easement,
have that be part of this
proceeding >> so we can
absolutely pursue that? It
requires us to work obviously
with the property owner and the
property owners be willing to
offer up that easement but it's
certainly something we can
explore with them. Eric can we
do you mind if I pull eric now
eric you're nodding your head
that the property owner would
be open to pursuing an easement
on the open space which is I
just want to >> be clear that
we're in a transition period,
right? Ibm still owns the
property, right? So we can't be
making commitments for ibm's
property. But should the
property change ownership that
>> the new owners would be
interested in having that
discussion obviously. Okay. I
think the issue here though is
as was stated, this is an
eventuality anyway. This is
something that's coming down
the pike. I'm interested in
having the property >> pay
taxes be developed into
something that's going to be
productive for us economically
rather than just sitting there
dormant. There's nothing I've
heard here so far from staff
and the attorneys that this
open space is somehow in
jeopardy or that we've
foreclosed on any opportunity
to have that easement at some
point in time. Right now this
decision preserves the open
space as is. So I'm not sure
what the concern is at the
moment from the community. And
in addition to that we're not
actually having a conversation
about data centers right now.
this is a step towards it. I
want to acknowledge that. But
we're not having a data center
conversation at the moment.
we're just doing what the state
is required of us in terms
of conforming to zoning to meet
our guidelines or general plan.
so >> I with that I'll make a
motion to support or the the
rezoning I >> think.
councilmember we have a second
from councilor cohen. Can I ask
steph just on that point
of information, can you expound
a little bit for the public on
why this is an eventuality just
in terms of realigning the
zoning it would be helpful if
you all we are in here
constantly doing rezonings
because of state law. Can you
please share more about what we
are mandated by state law to do
and what we're not mandated to
do? >> so there is state law sb
1333 that requires for charter
cities conforming rezoning in
alignment between the zoning
and the general plan. So the
city has been taking different
batches of sites across the
city and bringing them before
council to align our zoning and
the general plan since this
application is proposed by a
private entity we have you
know, brought this up as part
of that application but
ultimately the city is tasked
to to have conforming zoning
throughout the city. Okay. And
then and I'll turn to other
colleagues who are speaking
just a moment. I'm guessing all
of us want to see the open
space. I know councilor casey
cares deeply about this, want
to see the open space there
that ibm intended to keep open
space forever more see that
protected. Can you share a
little more about if we do move
forward with this conforming
rezoning the protections for
open space and what would
actually share a little >> more
I heard a concern about it.
what would that process look
like? Should someone say a
future owner try to change
that? That's zoning. Yes,
absolutely. So if there was a
future proposal to change the
zoning for that open space, it
would also need a general plan
amendment first of all. So that
is that does require councilor
approval. It requires
environmental review and the
due process so public input to
that through that process. In
addition the the open space
zoning that's currently in the
zoning in the plan development
zoning is actually less
restrictive than the city's
general plan open space
designation. Can you say that
again so that the existing open
space zoning is less than the
pd in the pd is less
restrictive than our general
plan? Open space designation
because the general plan
requires that any structures in
an open space designee ation
has to come forward with a
conditional use permit. I >>
see so that the rezoning the
portion going to open space
actually would be more
restrictive than what it
currently is, correct? Correct.
okay. If anything >> I would
to those who are deeply
concerned although I would say
if anything the trend has been
toward creating and protecting
more open space, not less. That
has been the steady trend now
for many years. Okay, thanks
for clarifying. I think that
added some helpful context. Let
me turn now to other colleagues
council our committee. Thank
you so much to all who came out
to give your thoughts on this
item and thank you to
my colleague
councilmember casey who who
leads this. >> you know, one
of the things that I am aware
is while the open space there
are some protection, the only
way to ensure >> it really is
if you do have a permanent
conservation easement on it.
and I just want to get
clarification on that point. We
cannot require an applicant as
a as a part of their rezoning
to require a conservation
easement on something that has
been known to be permanent open
space. Is that a question for
the city attorney or yeah, well
>> whoever whoever wants to
give me the right answer. So
the easement would require both
parties to agree to come to
some agreement so we cannot
require okay so >> we can't we
can't make that as a
requirement of the rezoning.
correct. Okay. Okay. That that
makes it very clear. You know,
I think that it is unfortunate
that in this circumstance we're
not allowing more time. I would
have liked to have seen more
time as was requested by some
of the letters that we received
because I think that, you know,
while yes, we want to update it
and all of that, I think that
having conversations with the
community of what is being done
is appropriate right? I mean
this application is not going
to turn around or we're not
going to have something there,
you know, like right away. So
you know, I do think it's
important to to have that
community input. I mean even if
it's like two weeks or what
have you simply because it
allows the community to better
understand where we're going.
so I will not be supporting the
motion unless
councilmember casey wants to
wait two weeks to allow people
to get an understanding further
understanding I was not aware
of sb 131 so I just think that
it's important to have that
community input. But I don't
know if you would allow a two
week hold off. >> I appreciate
community input and I don't
think bad news doesn't age well
and that community input is not
going to actually change
anything. I don't want to be
performative about it and just
give folks an opportunity to
vent when they're not going to
actually change anything. Scuse
me ridiculous. >> so please
don't boo or cheer during
council deliberations are off
to ask you to leave the
chamber. Good
councilmember yeah. So just for
that reason I mean it's not
going to change anything. This
is an eventuality that's going
to happen so I appreciate and
we did receive the input but I
don't see how that input is
going to actually change the
ultimate decision. Yeah, no I
understand. I thought that that
would be helpful. I also think
that in the meantime the the
applicant and the owners would
perhaps think about I know we
can't require it but would
think about you know what might
be possible in terms of a
voluntary conservation easement
that way they you know for sure
right for those coming in those
going out so yes but thank you.
thank you for your thoughts.
but I >> also think there's an
opportunity if they do come
back for the industrial portion
to have that conversation
before we approve whatever they
decide to do with the
industrial part, we can have
that be a condition and have
that conversation at that time
which I think is more
appropriate than at this moment
. Thank you. Thanks >> council
member let's go to councilor
compost next. >> thank you
mayor and thank you for
my colleagues cousin casey for
pulling this item.
councilmember camejo for your
questions and the members
of the community who came out
to engage with us on this item.
I just have two questions that
I want to ask staff and the
first is for more information
about sb 131 and the to
exemptions for certain
industrial uses >> I can start
and then I'll see if david
kianna principal planner wants
to chime in. So sb 131 went
into effect last july and
allows for that. The state
essentially has allowed for
exemptions for advanced
manufacturing uses from the
california environmental
quality act. So from
environmental review and so
this particular site how sb 131
could potentially affect it is
that if the ip rezoning is
approved then there could be
certain very limited advanced
manufacturing uses within that
ip zoning table that are
allowed that may be exempt from
those requirements. However,
the general plan the ip general
plan designation at a
programmatic level already
allows for those uses. David >>
and >> good afternoon
councilmember campos david
conference will plan on the
city's environment review team
so sb 131 as I said is a
statutory submission approved
by the state that exempts a
very targeted group of land use
actually projects for it under
the umbrella of advanced
manufacturing. It's things like
nanotechnology, biotechnology
you know research and
development involving some sort
of manufacturing. It's very
limited. I do want to mention
and reiterate that it does not
include most of the land uses
in the wild or the industrial
park zoning districts such as
offices and warehouses and data
centers. Those are not within
>> the group of projects >>
that would be exempt under sb
131 statutory exemption. So
projects that proceed if there
was to be a project that was to
proceed on the site under the
industrial park zoning
designation would have to
go through its own secure
process at that time and for
example or data center would
have to go through its own full
environmental review process
at that time. Thank you, david.
I'm in there for that response
and then this second question
is kind of also a request so
you know, given what we heard
about not being able to require
the conservation easement
of the future property owner,
can staff guarantee that you
will provide the information
that they need to be informed
about, you know, that that
option that they have I don't
know if that's common practice
but for this project is that
something that staff could
ensure that the project
applicant or the next property
owner knows that a conservation
easement is a request of the
community and that they have
that information? >> yes,
councilmember absolutely. Thank
you for confirming that. Those
are my questions. >> thanks,
councilmember. I appreciate it.
let's turn now to
councilmember claudius. Thank
you, mayor, and thank you staff
for clarifying the process for
actually pursuing the
conservation easement on a
follow up since it was just
referenced a couple of times
about some of the commitments
made by a previous council back
in the 90s to pursue permanent
protection of the open space.
what is your take on that
history is the history here
essentially that council made a
recommendation that was not
legally enforceable or was it
too ambiguous kind of what
council was intending? So again
>> councilmember, I apologize.
I'm just trying to get to a
better mike. That's the the
previous direction came through
a memo by then
councilmember dando that
directed staff to pursue a
conservation easement. So
obviously we don't have all
of the records of the
conversations that occurred
after that but it does require
both parties to be willing to
pursue that. And so the
eventuality is that we don't
have that so we can only assume
at this point that no agreement
was reached. Thank >> you. And
then just to follow up on
councilmember casey's point, is
this something that could be
potentially added as a
condition for any future actual
project application on the
industrial zone portion >>
of the site? So again, it would
>> be similar direction to
pursue it that certainly
something that we could >>
engage with an applicant with
prior to approval of that
application and just sort
of see what their willingness
is to have the conversation and
then do some follow up work
around them. Thank you. You
know, I think it's clear that
obviously the community itself
but also many of us up here
would like to see some firmer
protections for the open space
component here. So whatever
form that takes, I'm hopeful
that if an actual project
application comes back on this
site that we can collectively
move towards better protections
for this open space. But in the
meantime it is good to
at least know that the general
plan open space designation
will include some additional
safeguards that are not present
under the existing pd zoning.
thank you. Thanks council
member I don't see any other
hands so toni I think we're
ready to vote on the motion by
councilor casey >>
. Motion passes 9 to 2 >> with
mae and campos voting no. Okay
. Thank you, toni. We are on to
our next item. That was ladies
consent rhonda item 3.1 which
is the report of the city
manager. >> thank you, mayor. I
have no report today. Okay.
thank you, jennifer rhonda,
item 3.3 this is the housing
department law loan portfolio
audit report. Take a moment for
city staff to move down to the
box >>
and joe, when you in the timber
ready go ahead and get started.
yes. So good afternoon >> joy
city order. I'm here with
alison, polly adrian perez and
maria vi to present are on
affordable multiple multifamily
housing loan portfolio clear
goals and stronger oversight
would improve monitoring also
in the boxes eric sullivan from
the housing department >>
affordable >> housing serves
low to moderate income
residents in the city of san
jose to support the development
of affordable multifamily
housing. The city's housing
department provides loans to
developers for the construction
of new properties and the
preservation of existing
properties. Along with the
loans come restrictions on
tenant rents and income to
ensure that the units remain
affordable over the life of the
agreement and the affordability
period. Housing staff are
expected to verify that
property owners repay loans for
affordability restrictions and
maintain buildings at the time
of the audit, the permanent
loan portfolio totaled over
$745 million with nearly 25,000
units with active loans
affordability restrictions or
were in the pipeline across
roughly 220 properties. Many
loans were recorded before 2012
and are also subject to
regulations from lenders and
government agencies including
the state and the federal
government. The objective
of this audit was to assess
housing processes for managing
the affordable housing loan
portfolio including loan
servicing and compliance
monitoring as described in the
city's adopted operating budget
in addition to providing loans,
housing manages and oversees
the city's affordable housing
loan portfolio portfolio
including loan servicing and
monitoring and compliance
of deed restricted apartment
apartments. Housing's role is
to provide asset management
which involves monitoring the
financial performance
of properties and the overall
portfolio which differs from
property management which
relates to the day to day
operations of a property
housing >> context multiple
types of oversight including
financial reviews for staff,
examine financial statements,
operating budgets and other
documentation required to be
submitted by property owners
affordability restriction
monitoring where property meant
or property managers are
expected to submit rent rolls
with rent levels and tenant
income information to housing
staff and staff then check
whether the rents are within
the allowed rent limits for the
unit type and may check tenant
incomes. Lastly, property
inspections which enable the
city to monitor the building's
condition any problems that
need to be addressed to
maintain the long term
viability of the property. We
had two findings I'm we provide
alison to talk through those.
thank you. Our first finding
was that housing should assess
the asset management teams
goals and resources as joe just
described the asset management
team's role is to monitor loan
compliance for the city's
affordable housing loan
portfolio. This involves
verifying that borrowers repay
city loans, that housing units
comply with affordability
restrictions and that
properties are appropriately
maintained. We found the team
has not completed all annual
property reviews or inspections
in recent years. According to
housing, the team has
historically not been able to
complete all reviews annually.
of the more than 200 properties
in the portfolio vacancies and
unclear expectation liens have
hindered the team's ability to
complete its work. In addition,
the current software tools may
not be sufficient to meet the
goals of the program. Given the
size and scope of the loan
portfolio replacing or
retooling software would help
the team complete their work
at the time of the audit.
housing was developing an
automated rent roll portal to
assist with reviews and was
working on developing standard
operating procedures that would
support staff to complete their
work more consistently. We
recommend that housing develop
a program level strategic plan
to identify the program goals
and resource needs to
reconfigure the current
software or to acquire an asset
management software platform
and to update and standardize
operating procedures and
training. Our second finding >>
is that housing should
strengthen oversight
of affordability restrictions
and higher risk properties.
some properties in the
affordable housing portfolio do
not comply with affordability
restrictions. Have not
submitted required
documentation or have repeated
property violations. We found
in a limited sample of 878
units across ten properties
which represents 4% of the
total units managed. 110 units
had tenants with incomes above
the cap for their unit type.
that was 13% of the sample
based on federal standards,
incomes slightly over the
limits generally aren't
considered a problem because we
don't want to penalize people
for raising their incomes.
however, 48 units had tenants
that earned 140% or more of the
income cap which was 5% of the
sample. That income level meant
that they exceeded the federal
standard. Another concern is
the potential for tenant
incomes to be below
expectations meaning they fall
well below the target income
level for their unit. This can
leave the tenant overly rent
burdened and put the property's
financial stability at risk if
the rental income is very low.
we also noted that housing does
not have a documented
escalation process to address
comply or property violations
despite differences in property
compliance. The asset
management teams current
approach does not differentiate
financial and affordability
restriction monitoring based on
the risk of the property. We
recommend that housing develop
policies to address over and
under income tenants and
resolve significant or repeated
property concerns and to
establish a risk rating system
to prioritize compliance
monitoring. So to summarize
finding one focused on a
strategic plan to clarify what
housing role is and the goals
of the program and that plan
will help housing create
structures and processes to
oversee the portfolio more
effectively. Finding two is
about making sure we have
escalation processes when
something goes wrong in a
property whether that's about
tenant incomes, financial
concerns or the physical
condition of the properties. I
do want to emphasize that this
is a complex regulatory
environment with requirements
and regulations that can come
from multiple agencies which I
think eric can speak to as
well. This along with the scope
of the portfolio makes
addressing the issues we have
identified challenging. However
although the city can troops
only a part of the funding it
is incumbent upon the city to
have processes that ensure
these properties are
well-maintained with adequate
oversight. This is how we can
assure the properties continue
to provide quality affordable
housing to san jose residents.
here is to come as you accept
report before signature or to
eric for the administration's
response. Thank >> you joseph
eric sullivan director
of housing. I appreciate the
work of joe and his team in
acknowledging some of the
complex positions the housing
department operates in and
regarding this portfolio. We
are not the regulator
of primary instance. We
primarily notice other entities
the state, other funders to
noncompliance issues and play a
complex part in ensuring the
continuing asset management
of this portfolio. As we're
seeing in our aggressive
disposition of addressing very
distressed assets. So that's
regarding first community
housing and we appreciate joe's
sort of understanding of sort
of the awkward position that we
sit in and how we're able to
move and improve our overall
efforts at compliance while
acknowledging some of these
areas of enforcement are
outside of our direct
jurisdiction. The department is
coming into this position just
over two years ago has taken a
lot of work prior to the audit
including working on us as a
plan as well as looking at ways
in which we can better risk
rate across the 180 or so
buildings across the asset
portfolio. And so we're
continuing to bring that work
forward this fall as we begin
to implement these audits we
accept the findings and I'm
happy to answer your questions
. Thank >> you for the
presentation. Thank you, joe
allison and eric. Toni, do we
have any members of the public
who wish to speak? Yes, america
come on down followed by brian
online
. >> I want to call out the
city of san jose for violating
the brown act. You have an
agenda housing items that need
to be vetted by the public as
consent agenda consent agenda
usually is for routine >>
spending as well as something
that has been vetted by
appointed or elected bodies
such as in this item it should
not be in review again probably
because your committee in
economics voted for something
against >> the governments.
well so now you're putting a
here and also I want to call it
out >> that you got to stay on
this item is the housing
department loan portfolio audit
could you please stick to this
item? It isn't clear to
everyone I am. It should not
have been split back in the
open agenda. Also why is it
that you guys are lending your
property taxes >> as loans to
developers that is against the
will of your people? Did you
guys check with your property
payers tax? >> thank you that
your time? Brian darby it's
sorry about getting on there it
was well written report thank
you. Back to council all >>
right coming back to the
council thank you all start
with councilmember >>. Thank
you as always I'd like to thank
the auditor and his team for
good report and also for the
briefings. I always find them
very, very informative. I can
ask all my questions and you
know it's it's very good. So
thank you for that. I also want
to thank the housing department
for answering my questions. I
did note that some of the there
were some vacancies during a
previous time. I was just
curious if those vacancies have
been filled and allow you to
get to some of your target
completion dates as is
mentioned in the report >>
of the two vacancies one has
already been filled, the other
were pending an offer to be
made. Wonderful. Well with >>
that I'd like to move the the
item and the report and just
thank you for your information.
second >> thank you, councilor
accomplice >> thank you, mayor.
I do just want to thank staff
for this work and for the
presentation with just one
question can the city council
receive an update for when the
policy for addressing tenants
that exceed or fall below
income limits in affordable
units is developed because as
some folks may be concerned
with displacement impacts and
would like to understand how
the housing department might
prevent or mitigate
displacement of these tenants.
yes, we can come back and
report but again I know that
the housing department even if
we find those instances
of noncompliance of above or
below income, we can't take any
action. We just give notice to
the owner or property manager
and it's on them to then take
action. So we can't require
moves, we can't require
disposition. We can require
resolution. All we do is check
and notice this is part of sort
of the awkward setting that we
have in the department. >>
thank you. I think that
information would be important
for us to consider future
policymaking. Thank you and
great thanks councilmember.
just want to also thank you for
the audit. Joe, as always you
and your team do excellent work
and I think you have two very
specific and actionable
recommendations here that are
material to the city. So
there's a great audit and
appreciate the housing
department's follow up. Do we
have any >> other hands not
seen the other colleagues? So
toni, let's vote. Motion >>
passes unanimously with casey
absent. >> thank you. Thank you
all. Okay, rhonda, item 7.1
this is the city's response to
the santa clara county civil
grand jury report entitled >>
san jose animal care center the
need to strengthen
transparency, performance and
trust. We'll start with the
staff presentation >>
. >> good afternoon. I'm matt.
I'm the director of public
works and with me is monica
wiley, the deputy director for
animal care and services. We
will have a very brief
presentation to highlight some
of the findings and or
recommendations included in the
civil grand jury report that
was submitted to us in may.
first, we'd like to thank the
civil grand jury for their
review and investigation and
report for recommendations for
improvements at the animal care
center and our services that we
provide to the public. We also
want to thank them for their
acknowledgment of the progress
that's been made and the
commitment that we have to
improving our services to our
animals and to the people that
care for our animals. You'll
see that there's five findings
and the way this is structured
as you know because you did the
civil grand jury report last
week for one of them you have
civil war in the next couple
of weeks. The there's five
findings which we have to
respond if we agree, disagree
or partially in total and then
we have recommendations whether
they're implemented partially
or when they're going to be
implemented. So first just a
quick slide of all the
findings. We agree with all
of the findings that they have
except for one we partially
disagree and that's because we
think it's factually different
that we did not the number
of animals two taken by rescues
declined since 2001 they did
with cats but not with dogs.
dogs actually increased quite a
bit since 2021. So digging
deeper a little bit here on
finding one they recommended
the finding was that there was
a ventilation system error in
the facility. That's true. It
was a facility piece that was
under repair and there was an
improvement being done at the
time there were no animals in
the room. We got our facilities
folks out there and remediated
that that next week finding two
was the animals rescue partners
declined to that's where we
disagreed and pardon the
recommendation is that he needs
to develop a plan and timeline
to repair to expand the
relationship. We have expanded
relationships. We have more
relationships last year that
doesn't mean the animals. So
the relationship with different
rescue partners was actually
at its highest point last year
than it was in the last five
years. This is an evergreen
process. We need to continue to
work on relationships like
every relationship some in the
past we've had relationships
go away where they weren't
pleased with working with us
for a period and then those in
this last year have returned.
we have new relationships that
were added. In fact one of the
dog rescues pulled more animals
from us than any species across
any group in the last five
years in a single year just
last year alone finding three
the current provisions of spay
neuter is insufficient. We
agree we should expand public
to spay neuter either at the
shelter or to community service
partners. That's true. We agree
we have implemented that. We
have had more surgeries. Each
of the last three years than
the preceding year and we need
to continue to do more and
staff is committed to
increasing that and council
provided us additional
resources this budget cycle for
additional spay neuter
relationships funding funding
for we have changed some data
categories and historically not
consistently noted them. We
agree that we changed
categories. We did note them in
our annual report. One of the
things that we in a way
disagreed with what the civil
grand jury said and pointing to
what we have in terms of our
public data and our public
portals in terms of what the
actual true information is. For
example, the city must provide
accurate, clear complete data
to the public to assess a
performance. One of the things
we've chosen to do is lean
forward and be very progressive
about our data going out with
an open data portal in real
time. That means as the
condition of the animals change
over time we have to change the
information we have into the
public. The way I think of this
in the way staff thinks about
this is is if a person going
into the hospital they go in
one condition and things
change. They sometimes improve,
they sometimes decline,
sometimes they have to go to
another place before they end
up going home to a foster
system or a foster care or
something like that. So it
changes quite a bit as we see
it now in our response back in
the memo it was I want to think
that it's clear that our annual
report, our annual reporting
numbers are the true audited
numbers for the animals that we
served over the period of that
past year. Any in the
intermittent time it changes
quite a bit. So yes we change
it. We don't indicate every
single time we change. Whereas
last fiscal year when we we
presented our annual report we
noted that we had to in
alignment with the city audit
to align our data practices. We
had to adjust the data
categories and the data
reporting structures and we did
that for the prior year as
well. So we had two ways to
compare apples to apples fiscal
year over fiscal year. Item
four be worse as I will not be
implemented. This is something
that was at contention during
our audit and that we came to
an agreement with the seattle
city auditor about how we would
present our ability to show how
what our capacity is at any
given time as it's listed in
the report by the civil grand
jury. It's extremely tricky to
say what is our capacity? It's
not the amount of cages that we
have. It's not the amount
of professionals that we have.
it's it's also the the
condition of the animals that
we have. And so it's an
algorithm how do you get the
data system to present it? It's
an incredibly labor intensive
to make that happen in any
meaningful way. What we agreed
to is have a a status a shelter
update dashboard that shows how
many animals are in the
building at any given time and
that gets presented and there's
a dashboard for that to say
that we have because the
condition at some point the
number of kennels is 530 but
that doesn't mean we can care
for 530 animals responsibly
at any given time if they're in
a condition that is severely
negative. We need a lot more
staff time to do it or if we
have a smaller staff staffing
at any given time we might not
be able to care for as many
animals so that get capability
of conditioning of caring for
them is can be very tricky to
get a data system to present
our ability and then the other
ones are implemented as we get
going through each and then the
last one is the four d the city
should issue the number
of animals that were turned
away. We have been collecting
information and the question is
do we have it ready to present
into a dashboard so the public
can see how many we turn away
at any given time. We don't
have that system built yet. It
came in this recommendation and
as it's transitioning over to
pyrenees well I wanted to give
staff time some some time to
figure out how to transition
the information that they're
gathering and what's the
appropriate place or pace to
report out how many animals
they turn away that are healthy
at any given time due to the
capacity in the building >>
five there's a trust gap
between animal care and some
and yes that's true. I would
say that's true of almost any
relationship at times there's
trust gaps and we continue to
work on it. We have worked on
it. We will continue to work on
it. Monika has brought in our
community forums and there's
been there's three cycles that
have happened. We keep pushing
on more. They've got more
scheduled through the fall. It
is a commitment of animal care
staff to ensure that we
continue to work on the
relationship with the goal
of having a relationship
of trust. That takes time. We
obviously have harmed that
relationship over time and so
we need to build that over time
with confidence. One of the
things they asked for is a
public report on the audit
findings. We believe that's
implemented because one the
city order published all of the
things that we did on all
of our audit items and we did
the unprecedented thing. I
don't think there's any audit
that has a public web page with
all of the documents presented
in one place with all of the
things that were produced as a
result of that audit it still
stands today that will stay up
for a while. It should stay up
in perpetuity until we change
policies and do something
different. The community
advisory committee and talking
with both john cicero here the
parks rec and rex and
neighborhood services and
monica they do want this and so
this is something they're going
to build over the fall with a
commitment of having built up a
team to have their community
advisory group. They will have
that in place before the end
of the calendar year and then
public needs assessment. We've
wanted to do this for many
years. It just hasn't reached
to the priority that we need to
get that achieve. We could get
that achieved right now we had
too many other urgent things to
work on and so we do think this
is good because if we are
shooting for more spay and
neuter or for more services we
need to really understand what
that community need is to know
what goal we're shooting at and
to define and provide you the
direction the opportunity to
say we want san jose to be this
part of that problem set and so
that community assessment and
that survey we have a there's a
study period to see if we have
all the right resources and
tools to do it. If we don't
have it will come to you in the
fiscal year for the budget to
make sure that we get allocated
resources to pull that off
again, we like to think so as
noted in both my report and
other places, the shelter
animal care and services has
transitioned to the parks
recreation and neighborhood
services department. We hope
we've set a foundation from
which they can continue to
grow. We appreciate the grand
jury's recommendations and this
opportunity to reflect on the
progress we've made. We welcome
your questions. >> thanks,
matt. Monica, appreciate the
response. Thank you to the
grand jury for your report >>
toni, let's go to public
comment first. Okay? Again, as
a reminder, speakers must
comply with the city's code of
conduct for public meetings.
please come comments to the
body limit remarks to the
agenda item and observe the
time limit conduct that
materially disrupts the meeting
or interferes with others
ability to participate may
result in muting or removal as
authorized by law. I'm going to
start with the in-person
speakers why don't you hear
your name? Come on down first
person on the microphone
go ahead and speak the others
line up behind that person I
have samuel dana hayes, lynn
paulson and and lynn bell. >>
come on down. Hello. My >> name
is lynn paulson. I spoke to you
twice in the last year about
issues when I tried to rescue
two different dogs from being
killed at the san jose animal
care center. I if you plan to
move >> forward from the grand
jury report, it's important
that you increase your
engagement as the animal care
center moves to this different
administrative department. I've
sent you a letter indicating
thanks for some actions
director wiley and the center
have taken but also listing
some open issues. Too many cats
and dogs are being killed in
the last fiscal year 154 dogs,
715 cats and 496 kittens were
killed. There may be a newly
documented euthanasia process
but the detailed criteria have
not yet been made transparent.
there's not enough being done
to stop the incoming volume
of animals such as the actions
they referred to. We need to
increase the spay and neuter
services. >> there are too many
cases of retribution towards
staff or volunteers who've been
summarily dismissed. Please
listen to the community. We
count on your leadership >> to
address the issues. Thank you
that your time next speaker
also come on down save the
cats. >> good afternoon.
my name is dana hayes. I am a
foster tnr volunteer and an
advocate first van neuter. Last
week in district six I worked
on a hoarding situation with 77
cats and kittens. This is the
result of unchecked
reproduction and I appreciate
the grand jury's work and
recognizing the challenges
faced with animal services. But
the root of many shelter
problems is the animal
overpopulation and we need to
focus on prevention and turn
off the faucet rather than
continually mopping up the
mess. I recognize there is a
national veterinarian shortage
however, with two in-house
surgery suites not being foley
utilized and ongoing vacancies,
there may be other factors
worth examining. I would urge
the city auditor to review the
applicant pool recruitment
efforts and hiring outcomes to
identify barriers barriers the
city can address. I also ask
that the city reconsider their
policy >> of grant not hiring
and >> next speaker amy jahn
come on down >> and america.
hello, my name is andy shayne.
I live in hamilton place in
willow glen. I've been coming
to these city council meetings
for the last few years to
express my concerns regarding
the san jose animal shelter.
when are you guys going to
finally listen to us? I feel
this there are many problems
that affect the animals in
their care. I feel this is
foremost due to the management
they're firing two long term
volunteers because they took
pictures or videos of the dogs
to help network them is
unacceptable. How do you fire a
volunteer? They're volunteering
their time to help dogs get
their forever home. The shelter
should be appreciative of this.
I've been a volunteer a dog
volunteer at the humane society
of silicon valley. They
encourage us to take videos and
pictures because it truly does
help the animals get a home.
why did yukon have to use their
light for being inside a dog?
he made one mistake and one
knee reaction by this
administration caused the dog
to lose their life. You have a
lot of money to give to this
shelter over and over the years
and nothing is changing. When
are you going to finally >>
listen that your time next
speaker. Amelia >> mccluskey
come on down. Good afternoon.
my name is samuel. I'm a
volunteer at the oasis. I've
been there for more than a year
and a half with about 700 hours
of dog walking and 100 hours
of driving dogs to be neutered
and spayed. I know the shuttle
quite well. I walk daily with
management. I raise issues with
them. They're considerate. They
fix it. Maybe not the same day
but they fix it. People had
signed a contract with the
shelter and right after they
signed the contract they start
they started breaking the rules
and now they find themselves
out and they're going to have a
rally. 5:00 out there talking
about dog on volunteers. So I'm
here to give a testament. The
shelter management does not on
volunteers. They walk with
volunteers who want to walk
with them. If they want to
demonstrate outside. They
should be out. Thank you. Thank
you. Next speaker >> I urge you
not >> to accept the response
to civil grand jury report.
after years of advocates
raising concerns to audit media
stories and now this report, it
is clear that you're still not
listening to us and I'm sure
some of you're on your phone
right now not even listening to
us again. Finding five
identifies a trust gap between
the shelter and the community
and calls for transparency,
responsiveness and meaningful
engagement even with critics.
but look at recommendation for
the it calls for the city to
publicly report how many
animals are turned away. The
city claims its transparency
recommendations are
implemented. And yet says this
basic information won't be
posted until april 2020 >>
seven. How is that
transparency? The grand jury
also identified insufficient
spay neuter capacity and
declining rescue transfers
while its budget has grown to
17.5 million. Why are animals
still being set aside for spay
neuter? Why are there no vets
on the weekends? Why is medical
and operation >> still full?
the next speaker. I am a long
time tax volunteer. I have
volunteered there for five
years and I was one of the
volunteers who was terminated
recently. I'm here to speak
about finding number five the
civil grand jury report the
significant trust gap between
animal care services and the
community. I have experienced
that erosion of trust
firsthand. There is a lack
of collaboration, transparency
and accountability. Instead
of working with volunteers
toward the shared goal
of helping animals, the shelter
is increasingly creating
barriers. Most concerning lea
saying >> that saying simply
that an audit or grand jury
recommendation has been
implemented does not mean that
it's actually being followed.
we have seen dogs even now even
today being euthanized who do
not appear to meet the the
shelter's own euthanasia
criteria and volunteers who
raise these concerns are being
dismissed. Removing volunteers
will not remove the underlying
problems that we bring to
light. If the city truly wants
to rebuild trust as tracks need
to work with the volunteers not
around them, we need to thank
you that your time and genuine
>> collaboration. Next speaker
I want to know how things
got so far that a grand jury is
involved in this. I mean come
on people. This is governance
for cities. 101 if you're going
to take a class on it, you need
to be able to control the cat
and dog population without
having these kind of problems.
>> I mean these volunteers do
great work and having too >>
many cats outside brings down
the coyotes. Anyone seen a
coyote rogue roaming around
your neighborhood in the middle
of the suburbs? That's why >>
they got these feral cat
colonies in there. They come
down and they eat them sort
of mountain lions too. I've
seen them. Believe it or not,
not too far from where I live.
so the city needs to get their
act together, not be so
nonchalant and try to control
the cat and dog population. How
hard could it be? It's not. I
mean can you imagine this this
city is running this is like
mississippi or something. Come
on people. Get it straight.
thank you. Your next speaker.
>> so I have never seen any
city would have a county civil
grand jury report. Does that
mean that you guys were sued?
do you have dogs that are
biting people? It is scary. I
don't think I'm going to come
and help you guys next time
even if you guys invite me.
fellow americans, you guys
really need to maybe ask your
city government to stop
squandering your tax dollars as
loans to help builders and help
wealthy real >> estate
developers. And why is our our
entire state and especially a
rich city that is so close to
silicon valley run on
volunteers? Only one only one
answer. You must be communists.
that's what communist
government do. You guys >> take
property you guys take away
from people and enrich your own
pockets. And that's why real
estate sharks has a taste
because those communist
government that are corrupt
they buy cash. Thank you. Next
speaker. >> yeah, after this
speaker I'll go to rebecca
online. Hello. I'm a san jose
native from district three. I
would like to thank the
volunteers and staff whose work
I imagine can be gratifying,
heartbreaking and sadly never
ending. I'm concerned about
recent news news reports
regarding the firing of long
term volunteers for violating
the questionable rule against
photography. There is no hipa
in animal care. As a citizen
this arbitrary rule makes it
seem that whoever's in charge
has something to hide. Our
animals and volunteers deserve
better. I ask that the council
direct that this rule be
rescinded. Please bring back
these dedicated volunteers.
thank you. Thank you, rebecca
followed by the man rebecca
davis matthews. All right.
sorry. We need to start by
going with sustainable
shelters. I'm part of a larger
group of advocates who have
been coming to these meetings
for almost four years and
repeated pleas for change have
fallen on deaf ears. When it
comes down to it, trust and
complacency are figured in the
grand jury report. Shelter
management needs to take a hard
look at rebuilding trust with
the community. Take a look
at any found animal related
posts on social media and you
will see comments from members
of the public stating that
animals should not be taken to
the shelter because of the many
adopted cruel dogs silently
euthanized or put on a final
because of the many cats
euthanized behind the scenes or
listed as final for treatable
conditions like ringworm.
complacency current shelter
management is complacent and
disbelief that changes have
been made. There are still many
gaps in services most notably
the public spay neuter program
which currently has 1 to 2 days
of tnr per week when it should
be 4 to 5 days of both tnr and
services for own pets in house.
with the continued explosion
of puppies and kittens in our
area, the time is now to return
the shelter to its former role
in supplying a robust >> demand
followed by brian mann. If
you're on the phone it star six
to unmute >> someone. Good
afternoon. My name is mike
wagner. I have a fascinating
observation to share with all
of you. Over the past four
years we've had the management
audit that largely went ignored
back in 2022 as well as a
scathing 133 page city audit by
joe rice and his team. A da's
office criminal investigation
in 2024 led by investigate
owner chrissy durant and now a
civil grand jury investigation
in 25 and 26. The city has also
been sued in santa clara
superior court in 2026 by an
animal welfare advocate and a
former partner of the shelter.
give it all this. It's shocking
that the city has not
terminated a single director
nor has any director received
any disciplinary action even
though over a dozen ethics
violations complaints have been
filed with the city manager's
office. When are people going
to be held accountable? When
are people going to be handled,
held accountable for all
of these animals suffering and
dying over the last four years
>> by brian followed by tina.
>> I would bring up one thing I
read through and sent an email
about it. I've heard the word a
few times and I've heard it in
other situations too is
retaliation that's illegal to
retaliate against the
volunteer, to retaliate against
the citizens to retaliate
against an employee. Those are
actionable. The city has not
done well in lawsuits that have
done that have been similar to
that and it that should be a
critical issue. Firing for
cause having been a volunteer
not for the shelter but for
another organization for making
bringing up concerns
retaliation hurts people. You
know you put your heart and
soul into something and then it
just and then you're no longer
part of anything and it it
should be dealt with seriously
and it doesn't seem like it is.
thank you tina online followed
by kim in person. Hi, good
afternoon. This is tina
murrell. I live in district
three. I want to say thank you
guys for your time. I sent you
some thoughts yesterday via
email but I wanted to focus on
one thing in particular which
is outside of the scope of my
letter to you. I'd like to urge
you to please use your
influence >> as a mayor and
city council at a higher level
to help put through some
policies that will reduce the
cat population or
overpopulation. Assembly member
ash kalra is actively working
on some bills. He had a great
bill. It was to allow vet techs
to be able to spay cats and
unfortunately it didn't pass
but he's putting through some
other ones. Maybe that's a good
place to start. The other thing
that I'd like to invite you to
do is please check out these
places where you have your
voting on go and I. Kim was it
kim yeah. Hi, I'm kim. I just
got here so didn't get to hear
everything. I came here because
I've been watching online all
about the shelter. I have
rescued over 100 dogs so I know
how hard it is to be a
volunteer. It's so hard. I
can't imagine these volunteers
in the shelter watching dogs
get put down. I really >>
believe that the volunteers
need to be looked at. They have
some great, great >>
suggestions. I have tried to
contact you, mayor. I would
suggest some air to answer your
phone because you can't get
through to you. There's less
air. You want to talk to
me later? My company does that
and some of the council people
too. I've tried to like the
phone just rings and if we can
get a consensus of what the
population is looking at I was
shocked >> at how much verbiage
is being talked about council
people, mayors. I can't imagine
how hard it is in this
community with this shelter
with covid and all the dog
population. What you're dealing
with. Thank >> you. That's your
time. I have sue online here.
if you leave it you can leave
it with the clerk. Hi. I just
wanted to say that one of the
things I don't understand and
which I think reflects on
management somehow and this
issue of trust I keep hearing
about is this new volunteer
agreement that restricts
volunteers from taking photos
and videos of animals because
it really does help the animals
get adopted which is the whole
point of the shelter. So I
don't understand why they won't
give them permission to do that
and also the fact that
volunteers have been retaliated
against some of them who have
volunteered at the shelter for
a long time. They're doing this
for free for no money and hey,
you know, it's illegal in the
workplace. Maybe not for
volunteers but that just
doesn't seem right. Thank you.
>> back to council. Okay. Thank
you, toni. Thank you to all
of our public speakers. Before
I turn to colleagues, I'll just
say a couple of quick things.
one, I want to start by really
thanking the volunteers and
animal advocates, not just
those who spoke today but I
know we are very lucky in
san jose to have hundreds
of people who care a lot about
the care of animals in our
community and help in a variety
of ways from walking dogs to
trapping stray cats and getting
them spayed or neutered to a
whole variety of capacity that
they add just for a little bit
of context for those following
along. You go back a few years
ago coming out of the pandemic
we were hit with this wave
of animal releases into the
community during the pandemic.
sadly many people rushed out to
get a pet as they were at home
and then when they returned to
work decided it was too much
trouble and we had a huge
influx of pets. It also was the
case at least in my opinion
that we had been
under-investing in the shelter
and staffing and facilities and
really needed to invest to
modernize and I'm proud of this
council over the last three
years has significantly
increased the investment nearly
doubling investment in the
animal care center just over
the last three years and adding
to staffing. It's also worth
noting we have a new director
so there's been a leadership
change and we are in the
process. We've just moved it
from within public works to
under parks recreation and
neighborhood services. >> a
couple of years ago I and some
colleagues and I put forward a
memo calling for an audit. We
have a very extensive audit
with over 30 recommendations
most of which have been
implemented. So there is a lot
of work to do and to the point
I think you may love trust to
rebuild that isn't it's going
to have to be hard earned. It's
not going to come overnight or
just be because we say we've
implemented policies people are
going to see it and experience
it for themselves and make
their own determination. I do.
I do want to point on what I do
want to push on one item if we
could put the slides back up
and specifically go to finding
three and recommendation three
and I forget the slide number
now but it had to do with our
spay and neuter capacity. This
is something I've been very
focused on in recent years and
in the in my march budget
message which council adopted
we've directed the
administration to go to five
days a week and just again I
think it was said by some folks
during public comment but this
is our best opportunity to get
upstream. I was just actually
with councilmember cohen up
at west winds mobile home park
and happened >> to meet a group
who again voluntarily are
trapping stray cats and getting
them treated and then
rereleasing them and trying to
get upstream of this
proliferation of stray >> cats
and just in that one colony up
there, 250 or more cats and
some folks are lining up
at five in the morning hoping
to get a slot. So the thing
that concerns me and I just I
want to get a little more
detail and push on this a
little bit is >> we put here
recommendation three that the
status is implemented which has
a an air of finality about it
makes it sound like we're done.
then I think you said we're not
>> done or what are our options
in terms of the responses we
can give on status because I
think I think >> we probably
agree but I just want to get on
the record here that we have a
lot of work to do to expand
that capacity as one of our
primary prevention strategies
to relieve all that downstream
pressure that the staff and
volunteers are under. So matt
or monica can you share a
little more about where we are
with this? What's next and is
there any other word we could
use beyond just implemented
which makes it sound done >>
certainly and I did provide it
in the memo and that's. So this
was for the slide purposes that
is just listed as implemented
and there are contacts provided
in the notes in the memo and
which will go back to the civil
grand jury and monica and clean
up any additional things that I
miss. So by implemented it says
in so the recommendation is to
increase and expand spay neuter
surgeries if that's if that's
the marker then it is implement
we did increase and expand it
needs to increase and expand
more. You provided us new
resources in july that could
that will be used to expand
resources this fiscal year and
so and we've increased each
of the last three years double
digits the prior two years and
high single digits last year it
will be reported at the annual
report what the actual numbers
are in october so in just a
couple of months time like six
weeks time, monica will be
presenting the annual report
for the actual figures from
last year. It was just shy
of the target that I had sent
them but they also had a staff
member was gone for about five
months of the year due to be on
leave and there's so we have
increased even at a decreased
staff capacity and for the
first 6 or 7 months of this
year that last fiscal year
staff was spending a tremendous
amount of time implementing the
39 automated audit items. They
were spending a lot of time to
build both the policies and
procedures and training and all
of the things that are part
of that. Again you see
detracting a little bit from
our capacity to perform but it
was we weren't able to provide
necessarily as many surgeries
as we had hoped for because we
were building all those things
so that we can have a place to
grow from and so there is an
increase but it is not the
target that we're setting. It
will be increased higher this
year and the goal is to get to
a certain amount and I'll let
the team in october set what
their stuff is for this year.
okay. And when we come back and
continue with this discussion
in october, would that be the
best time for us to understand
for you to be able to quantify
how much that increase in the
spay and neuter >> services
will be this fiscal year? I
think I will be interested to
know from the beginning of the
fiscal year to the end how much
increased capacity we will get.
yes. So I think that's what
we're hoping is that they'll be
able to produce. So this will
be monica's first full fiscal
year with us as well. She had
gotten in the audit and get
everything staff oriented and
then oriented back to with here
on us and so they have a vision
of what they want to be working
on. They'll be presenting that
to the committee in october and
that this is what we achieved
and this is their vision for
the fiscal year. >> yeah okay.
and I focus on that one again
not because it's the only thing
we need to do. We know there's
from the audit many different
areas we're trying to improve
but it does feel like one
of the most strategic ways for
us to get upstream of the
challenge create some breathing
room for staff and be able to
implement all these other audit
recommendations and kind
of improve overall operations.
I see colleagues want to chime
in. I'm going to turn to them
now and I'll start with
councilmember ortiz. Thank you
mayor. I just want to start out
by thanking our animal care and
services staff. This is
incredibly difficult work and I
recognize that many of the
challenges that we are
discussing today didn't develop
overnight staff have been
working through capacity
pressures, staffing challenges,
veterinary shortages and
increasing demand for services
whilst still caring for
thousands of animals every
year. At the same time I want
to acknowledge our many animal
advocates rescue partners,
volunteers >> and residents who
have continued to >> push this
city to >> do better something
I believe we can do >> the
grand jury makes it clear that
there has been progress but it
also makes it clear that there
are there is still a lot
of work that needs to be done
particularly around transparent
sea rescue partnership spay and
neuter services and building
trust with the community. With
that I have a few questions.
staff is committed to >>
identifying the first cohort of
the community advisory group by
the end of the year. How will
members of the advisory group
be selected and how are we
making sure that some of the
advocates who have been most
critical of this shelter >>
have a seat at the table >> so
I'm going to kick this over to
monica in just a minute because
I won't be implementing this
piece because it'll be after
my term with x and so they will
be so they're going to spend
the next few months evaluating
relationships and kind
of figure out what seats need
to be filled what because they
they need to be in my mind the
different cohorts that they
advocate for or have
information about or have
information about us and so
monica can share what they'll
be a probably 7 to 10 people on
that first cohort just to get
the momentum going and they're
using their community forums to
build relationships with people
and they already have existing
relationships with community
members. Monica would you like
to share? >> >> thank you very
much and yes, to matt's point,
we are actually building out
the framework for this advisory
group and looking at some other
organizations that have such a
group in place to look at their
baseline, what the application
process looks like and the
representation for that
particular group. So john and I
have discussed briefly again
how to get this established by
the end of this year and are
working to build out those
pieces to make it a solid group
to help us move forward in the
community. Appreciate your
response but I don't think
my question was answered how
are the individuals who have
been raising concerns about
transparency going to be
included in this process? I
think depending on how this
group is formatted, will they
communicate with the group?
will that be relayed to the the
shelter itself? I think we're
still building that out. So
definitely transparency is key
for everything and what does
that look like and what
specifically are they looking
for the transparency on that
we're already reporting. So as
far as the group like I said,
we're building that out so we
we will have to build that into
it and get some feedback on how
to do that from the the group
>> because perhaps if since
they'll be in front of the nsc
in just about six weeks time
perhaps if they have a slide on
what they think their initial
thoughts are on that so they
can get both your feedback
feedback and community feedback
on what their thoughts are,
they can have a little more
better form thought for you
know >> the reason why I
mentioned this is because I
believe months ago I had asked
and the community had asked for
a community >> advisory group
and then I believe the
administration pushed back and
then we had these town halls
and then surprise, surprise now
we're being called upon to do
this community >> advisory
group and I would have
appreciated if we would have
went forward months ago since I
asked for it and now we are
doing it and what I don't want
to happen is for individuals to
feel like this community
advisory group was hand-picked
by the administration. I want
to make sure that it is made up
of also the individuals who are
raising concerns and I think if
it's not if we don't include >>
those type of individuals then
the integrity of the community
advisory group is in question.
I want to be clear about that
received >> okay. Thank you. >>
what authority or role will
that group actually have
because I want >> to make sure
as I as I mentioned that we're
not doing any things for show.
I want to make sure that
there's actual concrete
opportunities for people to
provide recommendations and
feedback and then that feedback
will actually influence policy
or operations. And so how are
we going to make sure that that
happens? So absolutely
recommendations and feedback
and then that will be viewed in
conjunction with the operating
procedures for the shelter and
reviewed as such. So this
particular group would not be
have power in that regard. It's
it's an advisory group. Let's
communicate, let's talk let's
build a better shelter. Let's
build a better san jose. Okay
but what okay they're an
advisory group they're
recommendations that are
provided during the meetings.
where does that go? Is that
shared to the council? Is that
reviewed by nsc? I want to make
sure that this >> isn't just
discussions and then there's no
action items or no follow
through. >> that's a great
point and I guess that's what
we'll build in when we have
this product for october to
share. Thank you. That's what I
was I >> was looking for. We've
talked about increasing the
number of rescue partnerships
but how are we measuring the
quality of those relationships?
are we regularly seeking
feedback from our rescue
partners on what's working,
what isn't working and what
barriers are preventing them
from taking in more animals? >>
we currently have a monthly
rescue partner meeting that's
been going on for the last
couple of months with it's with
our current rescue partners and
I leave the meeting there's a
meeting this thursday and there
will be a survey a satisfaction
survey to highlight some pain
points or what's working well
and assess some of their needs
and recommendations from those
groups. And then we're also
looking at how many new groups
we've added, how many active
rescue partners we have because
there are partners that haven't
taken any animals for some
time. And so again building on
that platform and regular
communication. >> thank you. I
appreciate that answer. The
grand jury also recommended
quarterly reporting on the
number of animals turned away
because >> of capacity staff is
proposing to collect that
information reported annually
rather than bringing in
quarterly reports to committee.
I understand that quarterly
reports is is more work for
staff but if we're already
collecting this data is there a
way to automate or publish more
frequently without requiring
staff to prepare a separate
report each time? I would
presume that we'd end up
getting someplace like a
dashboard like we have now
which has active transmission
of information in terms of I
don't it's a it's an
interesting single metric
of what the activity is at the
shelter. There are so many
other activities in addition to
healthy animals if you look
at the recommendation is
healthy animals that are turned
away from the shelter due to
capacity. It's a very narrow
thing compared to all of the
other lives that they touch
there and so to have that as a
regular report issued to a
committee or council seems a
little bit odd considering
compared to compared to all
of the other things and so they
need to work on gathering it,
make sure they have the data
feed and the collection correct
and then publish probably a
dashboard or some other kind
of report likely. But the again
regulated consistent
information usually hits at the
annual report for how many in
total? So as long as it's being
reported and shared in a
dashboard or something like
that, I think that's fine. The
report also >> speaks to the
staffing and capacity
challenges at the shelter as we
ask staff to improve
transparency, expand services
and strengthen rescue
partnerships and implement
these recommendations. Do we
currently have the staffing in
resources to realistically do
all that and if not, what are
the biggest gaps that the
council >> should be aware of?
well I'll go first in the
monitoring. Yeah. So we have a
very low vacancy rate at animal
care and services compared to
other positions in the city. I
would say most of the city has
decreased their vacancy rate
but when it was in public works
and pureness has the same
approach likely is to have a
very aggressive recruiting
footprint in terms of filling
vacancies for that service. I
think the community survey will
indicate where the biggest gaps
are compared to what we
currently have in terms
of service delivery in terms
of what the what the community
needs and then with council we
can define what is the role
of san jose's animal shelter in
filling that role that need.
and so I think it's a little
premature to say what the
biggest gap is some of the
hardest things to recruit I can
talk to that registered vet
techs and veterinarians are the
two hardest classifications to
recruit. We're always
recruiting for animal care
attendants because it's a very
transient class because they're
very new workers in the work
environment and so they find
out that the job is not for
them and they move on or and so
we have a lot of movement
there. But the hardest to
recruit still remains
veterinarians, even part time
veterinarians we've been
recruiting for those endlessly
seeking and interviewing
monthly or every other month
new vet to try to get through.
we've tried multiple things and
they're going to continue to
try multiple things to get
that. All right. I might
my light is blinking so it's
my last question on >> spay and
neuter services council has
already approved additional
funding to expand capacity. Can
you talk about what we can
expect to >> see in terms
of expanded spay and neuter
services over the next few
months? And as we increase that
capacity, do we have a sense
of what >> level of service we
ultimately need to reach to
meaningfully reduce the number
of animals entering our
shelter? Well, monica gets the
specifics. I think I answered
that in part to the mayor not
to try to punt off the question
is we do believe that increase
spay neuter is a is a need for
the community and the shelter
is committed to doing more. And
so in october when they're in
front of you at a.s. They'll
presenting this is what we
achieved and this is the target
and this is what we expect in
terms of growth. This is what
we're targeting for additional
resources. I know they're
soliciting additional vendors
to help support in that because
that's specifically what the
budget was targeted for and so
we're going to see what that
number gets us, what that
dollar amount that was
provided, how many more spay
neuter surgeries can be
provided with that and that'll
get reported to the committee
in october. Thank you.
appreciate the presentation.
look forward to my colleagues
questions. Councilmember mayor
if I would like to address a
little bit of the community
engagement questions that you
had and clearly we're still
working out a lot of the
details. Right. So we're not
prepared just right today to
kind of give you all the the
logistical but I do want to
address a dynamic that is it's
easy to talk about and harder
to do. You know, when you know,
I want to I want to be >> real
clear that staff is is
completely open to critical
opinions, perspectives, ideas,
even contrarian ideas. Steph is
definitely open to that. Where
it's >> problematic is when
some of those perspectives or
the advice is in all comes from
an all or nothing approach or
comes from a we want you to
hire this person and fire this
person and where where some
of the lines get blurred. And
so I just want to kind of, you
know, put the caveat out there
that as we convene this group
we need to find people that
understand that transparency
goes two ways, communication
goes two ways trust is built
two ways and unless people
including us, the city are
willing to kind of come to this
work in a way in a manner where
we're putting the best
interests of the animals under
our care first then I think it
will be successful otherwise
we'll end up in this continual
stalemate. I will say that
there are a lot of other
perspectives that you won't
hear today or you won't hear
publicly because it's very
difficult for someone to come
up and say you know what, we
support staff in these
different efforts. But anyway,
I just wanted to highlight the
obvious because that is a
dynamic that we rarely talk
about but it plays out on a
daily basis and is very tough
on staff to to work in that
environment where it's all or
nothing. There's a lot of gray
area here that we've got to
navigate and so I just wanted
to kind of just put that out
there because this will be
tough work. No, I totally
understand that angel and I
think that is fair. I just want
to make sure that as we do this
community advisory group we do
so by choosing individuals from
all different sides of the
aisle and all different
perspectives >> because you
know then there will be
questions about the integrity
of the committee and you know,
to be brutally honest I have to
work with people who don't
agree with my votes, who don't
agree with what I've done as a
council member. That's called
being a public servant. And so
unfortunately we we have to do
hard things. And you know, you
mentioned, you know, people
talking >> about hire and fire.
this has been >> going on for
years. You know this was going
on in my council office.
somebody would have recalled
me somebody or I wouldn't have
got elected. And so there is a
question about and I know
monica you're new but to
me personally >> there is a
question about how can we
continue to be in the news, how
can we continue to have
problems and nobody has lost
their job that that is that is
a concern for me and I've
personally mentioned that to
matt. Thank you. Thanks,
councilmember >>. Appreciate
your good questions and
advocacy. Let me turn now to to
one >> thank >> you mayor.
thank you to the speakers and
the volunteer hours and the
rescue partner that come out
and address your concern. I'd
like to thank the staff for the
report and the work to have
gone through the audits and we
revise and hopefully we can
find a better solution and I
know that sometimes that
solution may not meet the
perception or understand
of other but we'll do our best.
but in november 2020 for
my office along with
councilmember combet,
councilmember ortiz and the
mayor brought forth a memo
regarding you know, the
san jose animal care services
audit and those audit was >>
very clear on a lot of issues
that we need to work on and to
now >> I believe how many those
>> audits recommendation >>
have we completed all of them.
all of them okay that's that's
thank you for doing that and
even then we still have other
work to do. And >> in that memo
that we put out in 2000 2424 we
call for a work plan to expand
the low cost space and neuters
and so on and I understand that
you're working with milpitas as
well as private vet to do those
spaces and neuter is is that
correct? We are contracted with
the city of milpitas to provide
them sheltering and animal
control services for the city.
at times we have we do have a
contract with a organization
humane society of silicon
valley in milpitas and we have
contract we are we can have
animals had certain given
surgery there at that location.
they have done surgeries at our
location using our facility but
we are not this is not for the
city in general but okay have
you prioritize the the rescue
partner or identified certain
particular rescue partner group
that we could collaborate and
partner with to to reduce that
amount of you know, the stray
cats and dogs if you will? I'll
start monica can clean it up
and she'll get it right and
homeless we I believe we had
over the highest record
of animal partnerships rescue
partnerships last year than we
had in year four and again I'll
say one of our dog rescues
rescued more dogs last year
than any species in the last
five years and that was a new
relationship that was formed in
the last two years. And so they
had almost 400 animals that
were rescued by that one
organization last year and they
continue to seek more. They
continue to do better. They
continue to build on those
relationships on all species,
both cats and dogs and it is a
continued relationship building
effort that they're working on.
I was just going to say as I'm
poring over the data for last
year, I do believe the rescue
numbers were up almost 500 last
fiscal year over the year
prior. So again continuing to
build those relationships.
thank >> you. And I know
there's a lot of been changes
with the strikes and I know
that we're under you guys are
underneath pureness but there's
an ongoing issues about
transparency. How >> do you
know the the perception out
there that we're not doing
enough? How do we get our
partnership together including
the public to volunteer to have
a forum where it can be
publicized with action item an
implementation of those action
item and what is the end result
? Couple of things there. I do
believe recommendation in one
of the fives were the doing a
community survey of really very
clearly understanding what the
problem set is so that it's a
measurable target instead
of just more. Many times we
agree that more things need to
be done in particular areas and
specific areas but that you
need to do more of this what
are we shooting at and then
because we need to be able to
provide you this is the gap
between what the community
needs are and what we're able
to do with our current
resources. So you have the
choices to influence whether
there's a policy need there or
augmentation in terms
of resources or if we're
hitting the target. I we've
thought this for years but we
had so many other things to
work on that were more urgent.
but now we're at this place,
we're studying that and making
sure we understand what the
community needs in very
particular and detailed ways
across all these different
streams of service is very
important and it's timely. >>
thank you. I know the we offer
euthanized service to the the
owner or the family of the pet
cats or dogs. We I know that we
don't allow family members to
be in there but other occurs
does how can we change the
process to allow grieving
family members to hold their
pets and you know, say goodbye?
well, there you know, with the
service that we have I think
that would be something we
would need to look at staffing
capacity because it does
require more staffing for that.
and so if that's something that
we need to put on the horizon
for down the road, absolutely.
but it does require a different
level of staffing to
accommodate that sort
of feature in a shelter and
coming from a shelter where we
did provide that it does take
more staffing and support in
that regard. >> all right. Well
thank you for looking into
that. And the last question I
have is how many volunteers can
we accept and how many
volunteers do we have now >>
the last count I have was 300
active volunteers not including
fosters and we definitely want
to bump up that number. We have
volunteer orientation this
saturday and they're done in
person now so we do invite
folks to come down, attend
volunteer one on one general
orientation and I'd love to see
that number grow pretty
dramatically to get up there to
help with the animals and serve
the community better. >> thank
you very much. And with that I
move to accept the report. >>
thanks councilmember. Okay,
we're going to kill some. Okay
. Thank you, mayor. Thank you,
monica, matt and angel all for
the report today. I think this
is sort of a jason to council
member or tease and I think
maybe councilmember doogan just
sort of picked up on it with
you. Monica, you know the
volunteer piece, right? We've
heard some mixed commentary
from even our volunteers that
were here today as a former
executive director of an
organization that could not
have survived without
volunteers and served on boards
with very similar
organizations. I'm curious
whether we're staffed for that
kind of management
of volunteers and I apologize I
didn't ask this question before
today but can you talk about
you know, how we do that
in-house in terms of, you know,
volunteers oftentimes, you
know, they want to be treated
like employees in many cases
they want responsibilities and
therefore they want input and
that requires, you know,
management of the volunteer
program. Do we have that set up
at the shelter today or is that
something you're consider green
>> at this time with the number
of volunteers we currently
have, we are staffed for that
capability. We are reallocating
volunteers to >> their
coordinators. For example, if
you're a dog volunteer once
you're onboarded with the
volunteer coordinator and that
handles the administration
of the volunteer program then
you go with the dog coordinator
team or you're with the dog
team. So we have reallocated
that resource so it just does
not fall under one individual
the volunteer coordinator and
the same goes for the cat team
or the smalls team and those
are the main three teams but
the other training teams again
they're with coordinators in
that unit in the shelter
operation so they can have more
support and work more
cohesively as a as a unit so
all dogs and cats have their
own volunteers and staff
members. So >>
councilmember ortiz, I don't
know if you were sort
of formally requesting them to
kind of report out to you on
the you know, the sort of the
advocacy group that you were
talking about. But if it if you
were us and and I'm not on the
committee see I'd like to sort
of hear the next step on the
volunteer piece. I just think
it's one of those things that
organizations overlook when
when staff is there voluntarily
I.e. Free sometimes we lose
sight of the fact that they
still need to be heard managed
and you know, rewarded for the
work they're doing and not all
volunteers are created equally.
most are not going to want to
be on an advocacy committee.
many people want to come walk a
dog you know, see other
advocates or excuse me other
volunteers and move on. But and
so for those I think we need to
make sure we've got the support
of that part of the system
down. So I'd be interested in
kind of hearing that next step.
if >> I could just add one
thing. One of the things that
made monica stand out in the
recruitment of her for this
role was her again not saying
exactly what happened in the
interview but it was just her
advocacy for the importance
of solving problems with staff
and volunteers. And so it was
really this that you have to
apply that volunteer muscle as
well as the staff also by
themselves ourselves
at shelters we cannot do it.
and so that's where that
advocacy for volunteer is being
a critical part of that is
right on point and right
at monica's ellie thanks >>
matt. I do want to just take a
moment and recognize x we had a
very difficult situation in our
district with a very difficult
owner of let's say a lot
of animals and you know, I
didn't really realize the
extent of the services and you
know the work you're doing out
of the shelter and I just want
to recognize the really good
work of asis in that regard. So
thank >> you. Yeah, I'd just
like to say that the work that
we have to do in the community
and the animal control piece
the public safety matters is
of extreme importance and with
our partners across the
organization and housing npr
west to both serve the people
who are unhoused or under
housed and their animals and
with pureness in their beautify
team when we have to do
abatements we all do these
things hand in glove and it
really is a critical part and
our field services are critical
to that public safety mix and
we appreciate the outlook for
that. >> thank you. Thanks
councilmember. Let's go to
councilor condo's thank you
mayor know my appreciation matt
and monica for your report as
well as other advocates who
came out to speak on this item.
you know, I know the mayor
already touched on the tnr
program but I did want to echo
that as as a member of a.c. You
know, I do look forward to
ensuring the ramp up numbers
and especially what we heard
from folks is we're not
utilizing all the slots that
that we that we can to make
sure that we're filling that
need in our community. So I'll
wait for that october report
and and make sure that we're
we're leaning in on that and
then you know, I also wanted to
bold and underline closing that
quote unquote trust gap between
as jay as jax and our advocacy
advocate and yes, it's going to
be >> going along with the nsc
report that was mentioned in
the audit in october but also
the relationships and
communication that goes beyond
just a verbal report
establishing what we did. You
know, some of the some of those
relationships extend beyond
just here's here's the bare
minimum. And I think, you know
I'm angel thank you deputy city
manager angel >> for for
touching on on that especially
the comments as it relates to
that pressure dynamic and
working with folks who you know
are passionate but you know are
critical and I think to
councilmember ortiz and
mulcahy's point I think that's
that's part of it and look
forward to keeping abreast
of that as well and I know the
animal control piece is
something that we've we've
heard and this this report
doesn't explicitly call that
out but we have I have heard
from from from residents on
that process and specifically
with the transparency piece on
when we have an incident with
animal control and the
communication with our
residents. But I'll wait for
that october report to to to
ask specific questions on that
because I wanted to get my keep
my comments more tailored to
the to the civil grand jury
report. Thank you. >> thanks,
councilmember. Last call for
colleagues who want to chime in
on this item. Okay. We have a
motion from councilor dwan I
believe toni let's vote. Are
you seeing anything on your
screens? Yes. Okay. And I see
unanimous 1104 okay. Yeah. It's
>> not working on my screen.
I'll refresh but >> I see an 11
a unanimous vote to adopt the
response to the civil grand
jury report. Thank you. >>
thanks. Okay. Thank you, matt.
monica so we're now on to item
10.2. This is the
administrative hearing on the
appeal of the environmental
determination and site
development permit for certain
real property located at 1295
kirchner avenue and we do have
a staff presentation so once
staff is ready you may proceed
. >> and a reminder for those
who wish to speak on the next
item comment cards can be
submitted at the top or bottom
of the stairs here and just
indicate your name and the item
you wish to speak on. Thank
you. >> hello. Good afternoon
again. We're back with the same
team to my right director chris
burden or pdc I'm gonna send
you deputy director of planning
and to my left to have david
keon, our principal planner
with the environmental review
team and john to division
manager over the development
services team. So the item
before you today is the
environmental and permit appeal
of the director's decision on
the site development permit and
infill exemption for a
residential project at 1295
cotner avenue. The site is a.65
gross acre site designated a
residential neighborhood in the
general plan and with the
zoning of single family
residence the project utilized
state density bonus law to
propose 12 units at the site by
demolishing an existing single
family home and removing 24
trees that are proposed to be
replaced. The site development
sorry the state density bonus
law application provides two
affordable units one at the
very low income which is 50 to
80% area median income levels
and then one at the moderate
income level which is 80 to
120% of the area median income.
the project also requests
avesta ing tentative map for a
subdivision of the one lot the
.65 acre lot into ten
residential lots and one common
area for a private street with
access to individual garages.
so the project was reviewed
reviewed for consistency with
the general plan does the
municipal code are citywide
designs standards and
guidelines our public outreach
policy the california
environmental quality act as
well as under a state density
bonus law. The environmental
review included a class 32
infill exemption in accordance
with the state california
environmental quality act
because the project was found
to be consistent with the
general plan and zoning and it
develops and urban in lot which
does not have any suitable
habitat nor does it generate
significant traffic noise
air quality or water quality
impacts. Existing utilities and
other public services are
available to serve the site and
no impacts to historic
resources were found. Nor was
the site identified as a
hazardous waste site. The
director's hearing occurred on
march 25th and several members
of the public spoke on this
item specifically there were
concerns around traffic and
safety especially during school
drop off and pickup times the
height of the project compared
to nearby residences,
construction noise and dust
waivers from existing city
standards in compatibility with
surrounding uses and potential
negative impacts on property
values. There was also one
supporter for the project who
noted that it would provide
housing opportunity in this
area. The hearing officer
approved the proposed site
development permit and the
infill exemption at that
hearing which was subsequently
appealed on march 29th and
april 13th. Since these appeals
included an appeal of the
environmental review, these are
being considered by the city
council de novo as in to
consider the whole action the
appeal for the site development
permit raised concerns or
stated that the application was
not compliant with the citywide
standards, did not address
traffic safety concerns. I
stated that it was inadequate
the meeting fire requirements
etc. And then the infill
exemption also said that the
infill exemption should not
have been used because
of unusual circumstances on the
site and for the failure to
adequately analyze construction
phase traffic impacts. There
were also additional public
health and safety concerns
cited in these appeals staff's
responses included in the memo
to council to these appeal
statements is to say that the
say density bonus law is what
allows for the waivers from the
standards that the city has
since the project is utilizing
the city density bonus law to
provide additional density. The
project as proposed would not
be able to build if all of the
city standards were applied.
therefore the city is required
to grant that waiver unless
there is a specific health and
safety impact associated with
that granting of that waiver.
the fire department was
consulted during the the review
of this project and the permit
was cleared by that department.
compliance with applicable fire
and building requirements will
also be verified during the
building stage there were no
quantifiable health or safety
risks that were identified
during the planning review.
public works and the department
of transportation also reviewed
the project for compliance with
our traffic standards and the
san jose's complete street
design standards and the
project did comply with those
requirements. An individual
site specific traffic impact
analysis was not required
because the project is below
the threshold so we typically
require those only if a project
is 25 units or more. Since this
project was only 12 units there
was no site specific
environmental review required.
the school proximity does not
particularly trigger additional
review of the site. That was
something that was cited. There
was some state government
code section cited in the
appeal those are but those are
applicable to schools sites not
to individual private
properties and then finally
staff did provide the directors
hearing recording which is
posted during the appeal period
and the project materials were
also made available to the
public before a city council
meeting. This the response to
the environmental appeal all
the staff feels that the
surrounding conditions and
existing traffic concerns are
not unusual circumstances. This
is an infill project on within
an urban neighborhood or a
suburban neighborhood. It does
not trigger any significant
environmental effects as noted
previously and construction
related traffic is not a secure
related transportation impact.
typically when there is a
construction our public works
department would required
construction management plans
that address construction
related to traffic issues and
then the project buy in and
of itself would not
substantially increase any
hazards and there are no
anticipated health and safety
impacts due to the project's
size or location since it is
therefore a staff recommends
that the council deny the
permit appeal and uphold the
director's decision to approve
the site development permit as
well as the infill exemption
for this project that concludes
staff's presentation and be
available for any questions.
all right. Thank you for the
presentation we have two
appellants who combined >>
we'll have five minutes and
then the applicant will also
have five minutes. So I'll
start with the two appellants
>> don't I don't know if
they're here. Are the
appellants here? Okay. We'll
just pause for a moment or
either of the appellants on
this >> project in the chamber
. Okay we can try one more time
after the applicant but the
applicant has up to five
minutes to speak >>
. Good evening. Thank you neera
and staff for the presentation
and thank you city council for
hearing this appeal today.
my name's cyrus and vice
present development for city
connect partners. We're
san jose based real estate
developers who are specifically
focused on missing middle
housing infill housing here in
the bay area and just bringing
access to for sale
homeownership opportunities.
this project at 1295 corner we
love it's across the street
from wattenberg park community
garden and the middle and high
school willow glen high schools
and we're using state and city
bronislaw as munir described to
build 12 townhomes two of which
will be below market rate and
we're parking this quite
generously right now 42 stores
so it's around three and a half
stalls per unit when as you
know san jose has a zero
parking requirement and using a
density bonus this could be 18
units using to use but we felt
we've found a nice sweet spot
that we think would complement
the neighborhood. As I
mentioned march 25th we
received this to appeals or
after the tentative map
approval and one of the
challenges that we're facing
especially in this housing
crisis that we all are dealing
with is we have these two
appeals that both each cost
$250 per appealing on the
developer side it costs us
$15,000 per appeal so that's
$30,000 and here we are august
18th to discuss this appeal
from march 25th. So that's five
months that we have just been
kind of waiting around here in
this window and I just if we're
to approach this together to
work with the city developers
to bring thoughtful infill
housing next to parks, next to
schools, next to transit or and
work where people want to raise
families, create access to
homeownership. This is
something that we need to
address so delays equal higher
costs to build homes equals
higher costs for these homes
and that's where we are as
you'll see in the next
amendment our next agenda item
even up zoning from r eight to
r 32 is being proposed with the
general plan amendment. That
would mean we could have 21
homes on this site. So we're
really excited about this
project. We hope your to keep
it going to keep it moving
forward. It's a shame that the
opponents you know $250 each to
produce document aren't even
here to appeal so it's been
five months where we've just
been in this space so thank you
again for your time and we
appreciate it. Thanks for your
time. The appellant is online.
okay let's go to >> the
appellant and again >> there's
a total of five minutes I
believe we have to have we
located the other or is it just
one? Well, the >> other two are
not online that I see. I only
have one christine >> one I
mean start the timer for five
minutes once again thank you
but hi can everyone hear me?
yes, yes. Hi. The crux of >>
my environmental appeal against
the 1295 quarter project has
been existing traffic problems
at this site. The project will
permanently worsen these
problems. I requested a formal
traffic review before
proceeding with the project
today right at the city council
meeting >> there was an active
police investigation at the end
of that intersection of the
development the entire corner
of kirchner and cordell was
blocked off by police and
helicopters were overhead. Two
men were stabbed and went to
hospitals in what nbc and many
other outlets including mercury
news say was road rage. Today's
road rage incident leading to
two stabbings is the exact
intersection where neighbors
have pleaded for a traffic
study before proceeding. There
should not be a vote until the
evidence is clarified as to
what happened at this road rage
incident. This road rage
incident involving >> stabbings
not matter because there are
less than 25 units. Are there
two child injuries >> within
six months unimportant because
there are less than 20 >> five
units. You don't >> have to do
a traffic study but you should
your close your eyes and you've
never answered to explain all
the child injuries or the >> or
even this and then you continue
to proceed saying there is no
unusual traffic, there is no
unusual there is this isn't
corner according to you is not
a major street. It's insane.
are you done? I'm done. Okay.
thank you. All right. Do we
have the thank you. There was
still time on the timer. Did
you find the other appellant? I
don't see their hands on line.
I don't wait, there is a
jenny I'm going to allow her to
talk and see if that's jennifer
can wait. Her hand just went
up. >> can we confirm that that
is yeah. Yeah. >> hi. Hi yes I
am the other appellant yes. I
echo all of christine's points
and we've been saying the same
thing the whole time that
although there is no
requirement >> to do a safety
study at 12 units that this
does seem to be an exception on
>> the reports have said that
this is considered a minor
street. Both carter kirchner
and cordoba. But we would argue
at this particular intersection
that it is a major thoroughfare
and every single person that
lives here understands that. So
we are highly concerned about
it getting passed without a
safety study and that's what
we're asking for. We're not
saying completely stop this.
we're saying please take a
moment. So many of our children
go here. We have seen so many
accidents. We live right here.
we are the first people on
response when these things
happen, please make sure it is
safe. Thank you. Thank that I
do. Okay let's proceed with
public comment on this item.
okay. Let me go through
my script again. I'm not going
to because I accidentally
closed it and you guys heard
the speech many times. You know
we're going to call names come
down to the microphone first
one >> to speak. Please be
respectful and speak on the
topic. I have cleo sandra
delvin no name it just as local
subcontractor roberta moore,
cyrus and alice come on down
and then I'll go to the zoom
commenters after these in
person speakers. Thank you. And
just a reminder comments tend
to be specifically on item 10.2
which is the property located
at 1295 corner and then in the
next item we'll get to the
broader general plan issues.
yes thank you. Well >> that is
a lot of trees that I saw in
the application be removed and
last week or so you talked
about tree canopy. This project
is before you because of the
actions of the developer has
requested as well as a
discretionary review process.
this process allows the public
opportunities to comment and
receive notifications of things
that will impact them. There
there's a lot of mature trees
and they're losing them.
communities work better when
residents are provided
opportunities to be heard and
have input on the projects that
impact them every day or will
in the future. I hope that you
will still continue to have
community input on projects in
this city going forward. Thank
you. Thank you. Your next
speaker well >> I'm going to
shock the out of you. These are
the kind of projects that work
parking. Thank you. I was going
to comment all about parking
and I want to say that I
appreciate you having a public
hearing. If 10.3 passes this
will be eliminated. I want
everyone to understand and that
I do hope that you study and
fix the traffic safety issue
and you have the developer
incorporate that in the cost
of sale and kudos for building
housing for homeownership.
thank you. Thank you. Next
speaker hi, I'm alice. I was
shock I actually pulled up
google just to look look
at what it is. It's all in a
single neighbor single family
neighborhood. Okay. Do you live
>> right next to a 12 unit
apartment? Do you most people
don't they don't expect you to
be doing this. So >> I'm
looking at it. Okay. So what's
a benefit to two affordable
housing? One is a moderate
income. What are you are trying
to achieve? Okay, this is just
a developer stream and and
aiming to destroy a single
family neighborhood. How could
you be allowing this kind
of stuff to happen to san jose
that is just not okay. Okay so
I need >> you to go back to the
drawing board to consider what
a single family housing
neighborhood looks like. We're
you know, we have plenty
of space if you want a higher
density housing you can >>
go somewhere else. Thank you.
next speaker >> hi, my name is
ron stern and I live 1275 or
so. I shower a 100 foot fence
with this guy and I'm telling
you there's beautiful 100 year
old trees on the property. So
we're going to try to squeeze
so much stuff in such a little
spot. The traffic I don't know
if any of you ever been down
kirton around or cornell avenue
during school you cannot move
from kerner all the way to >>
pine avenue. It's just a solid
wall now they're talking about
30, 40, 50, 60 cars. They're
talking about more people.
they're talking about more
congestion. I can't even back
my car on to kirton or any more
because of all the problems and
I just find that nobody >>
cares. Nobody you guys work for
us. We don't work for you. We
don't want this development in
our neighborhood. This is a
single family. It's been that
way for a long time. I'm
retired. I don't want to listen
to building over the next 18
months day and night I'm going
to have to listen to saws
sanding cars, trucks,
everything and I my enjoyment
and my property will be gone.
and this is a 30 foot building
right >> next to my fence 30ft
. Thank you. That's your time.
next speaker >> you okay? So
I'm going to go to online I
have been carter followed by
brian van carter you're unmuted
but we're not hearing you.
okay. I'm going to move on to
brian followed by gorman. Simon
>> says to you but I'll keep it
under one minute. I want to
make sure that the people
listen to what these people are
saying. The owner has a right
and we do need more housing but
there's the infrastructure that
you there's the infrastructure
issue there. The there's a and
the traffic studies that should
be done and I have driven out
there and I walk over there it
is a very dangerous
intersection. And so I mean you
can't really do anything about
it because of what the state
did and the train it can talk
to the state is beyond futile.
so okay. Thank you. Hold on.
gorman followed by blair hello.
go ahead. Okay. Good afternoon,
council members. I'm here today
to oppose the development
at 1295 new avenue. This is not
simply about adding housing.
it's about making sure that any
development this size is
appropriate for the location
and the concerns of the people
who actually live here. I
genuinely heard kerner avenue
was identified as part of the
city's vision zero five year
plan which recognizes the need
to address dangerous weeds and
prevent serious injuries and
fatalities. Today we have an
urgent reminder of why this
matter. As you mentioned
earlier, a stabbing occurred on
the corner of kirton and
connell following what has been
reported as a road rage
incident. I'm not suggesting
that this development caused
that incident but it
underscores the real safety
concerns surrounding traffic
conditions and conflict in this
area. It is a major thruway to
freeway 87 and to 88 gold
within one mile. And even if
it's not required, do the right
thing. Listen to your
constituents and request for a
traffic study. >> blair
followed by toni >> by >> blair
bateman. Nice to hear public
comment on this item. It's >>
an old issue good luck and a
community process working to
solve this issue. I'm really
going to respect that if
there's 100 year old trees
there and it sounds like a
number of them that has a
certain precedence I think tree
canopies have a certain
precedence. Good luck in
wanting to develop low and
moderate income housing also. I
hope we can be doing those
things. It was stated that the
land >> in this area is pretty
clean and pretty clear. No
environmental hazards. Serious.
good luck if extra tests are
needed. Our extra environmental
tests are currently needed for
the item of 10.1650 harry
drive. Item I just thought I'd
ask that. Thank you. >> thank
you toni followed by venkata.
hear me? Yes. Okay. Right.
well, thank you for listening
to us or to me for today. I
oppose this tremendously. You
can do a traffic thing but even
with the traffic thing I think
it's a poor decision if you
want to put a couple units like
four possibly that are lower no
more than two stories I could
understand that. But to put as
many homes as you're doing and
if the next thing is passed
it'll be even worse because
you'll try to put more in
there. There is a school there
and trust me I drive down. I do
not even go near curtin or in
carmel during school time. This
is could be a terrible terrible
mistake of putting this live in
the school >> for them. Thank
you laura >> followed by renee.
laura, you're unmuted. Can you
hear me? Yes. Okay. I was born
>> and raised in san jose and I
have lived two streets away
from the property in question
for 28 years. I am very
concerned about the parking for
the proposed condominium units
>> many families bring with
them at least two vehicles and
sometimes many more. If the
number of owned vehicles
exceeds >> the number
of parking spaces on the
proposed property, cars will
overflow into the street.
currently there is a preschool,
a middle school and a high
school all located on carroll
avenue between the subject
property and dry creek road.
all three of those schools are
only in one quarter of a mile.
there are hundreds and hundreds
of students >> attending these
schools. Last year alone
several students were injured
during pick up and drop off due
to extreme traffic congestion.
on the addition of more parked
cars will only exacerbate this
problem. As a homeowner I have
witnessed >> many many more
near-misses every day. The
addition of added cars due to
inadequate parking >> will pose
significant risk. Renee I can
hear me. Yes. These type of >>
projects in the middle
of existing neighborhoods
should not be allowed. 12 units
on residential parcel is a lot
of additional people in cars.
14 waivers to get this through.
that's a lot of waivers. The
applicant said that real estate
developers trying to solve the
housing crisis. Unfortunately
the housing crisis continues to
get worse because of real
estate developers by
redeveloping single family
homes into multi units or multi
homes. It just makes the
housing prices continue to
soar. The city council should
reject this plan and work
toward trying to save san jose
neighborhoods and
overdevelopment. And see what
we can do to fight back against
developers at the state level
which is basically how they're
trying to push a lot of these
projects through by using state
laws and also by just
dismantling local oversight.
thank you. >> back to council.
>> thank you, toni. Everyone
who spoke in public comment
only turned to my colleagues.
we'll start with the vice mayor
foley. Thank you, mayor and
thank you for the presentation
and for all the public
comments. I know this
intersection in this house
really well although it's in
districts six >> it's probably
closer to my house than it is
to yours. Council member. So I
drive down that way all the
time. I know curt and are very
well kirchner >> is a vision
zero corridor and does have
some serious safety issues that
intersection and in particular
is a dangerous intersection. I
agree with our the callers
about that. In the report it
mentions that speed bumps have
been installed on codel but
that isn't correct. I drove
down cogdell just yesterday to
confirm. As I said it's very
close to my house. I use that
way to get home all the time
and did not. There were no
speed bumps so I'm wondering
what the status is of the speed
bumps that might be implemented
to be installed on that street.
>> through the mayor we do have
department of transportation
staff perhaps they can address
like what kind of traffic
calming measures are being
implemented or proposed in that
area. Oh good because I have
more questions for him. Thank
you. >> you know I am the
vision zero councilmember so
and this corridor is of concern
to me >>. Hi. Hello. >> council
member for the future dottie
division manager. Thank you for
your question. I was not aware
of the speed bumps but I'll
have to talk to our vision zero
team. They're the ones who
handled those. I'm from a
different division. I do
development review as some
of your council members know
that I've worked with
personally but we'll get back
to you on the speed bumps
question but definitely this
intersection in the surrounding
neighborhood and the high
school there will high school
has received attention from
d.o.t. Traffic safety and our
neighborhood traffic management
team in the last few years and
we'll receive more in the next
upcoming year. We're currently
waiting for as the school has
started for traffic patterns to
normalize before our
neighborhood traffic management
team will go out there, obtain
specific counts to do a
crossing guard study at the
intersection of cogdell and
kerner and our safety team that
our school safety team will
also in mid-october do go out
there and obtain additional
data to do a access and
circulation study that they do
at other high schools and
elementary schools in san jose.
so thank you for that. So
you're still planning to do a
traffic study of sorts to
determine the flow of traffic
down cogdell and kerner or
particularly in relation to the
schools. But that really is
when traffic is most impacted
on cogdell avenue because
of willow glen middle high and
the preschool that is right
there. So you're planning to do
that after school gets settled
in september or october? Yes,
right now I think we're talking
about a mid-october timeline in
terms of the actual school
circulation and access study. I
think that counts for the cross
card study. Well, maybe perhaps
a little bit earlier will be
obtained but will confirm. >>
okay. Thank you for that. The
other thing I noticed as I was
driving across the intersection
is that the paint on for the
intersection for the crosswalks
is quite faded and could use a
>> refresher. I know they're
doing work on kerner. We've
worked on it regularly and it's
even just having the highlights
of better painting would would
help a little bit. So I'm happy
to hear that. I'm I'm going to
defer to councilmember mulcahy
for for some of this but you
should all know that this is a
quasi hearing and we act as
judge and jury over this
hearing and we're only hearing
the appeal to what the what
planning department has already
said. Isn't that correct? Yes.
from an attorney or someone who
whoever? Yes, that is correct.
although the council can
consider the project de novo in
terms of the entirety of the
project. Okay. So I'm not sure
that this is on point within
this quasi hearing or not but I
have a question with regards to
the construction hours as it
relates to the middle and high
school and traffic patterns. I
would hope that when we move
forward or is it possible to
restrict construction outside
the window of commute traffic
drop off and pick up because
it's they're working on cogdell
or kerner >> it's going to be a
mess and I share the concern
of those neighbors who live
there. I don't have to >> drop
my daughter off anymore. She's
30 but I used to drop her off
all the time to willow, glen
and I'd figure out ways to
avoid the traffic. It's only
gotten worse so is there
anything we can? Yes, we can.
yeah, I think for a
construction project typically
a construction management plan
could be required and the
council has the discretion to
provide parameters that can
then be imposed by the public
works team. >> okay so council
member when that comes before
you I'll let you advocate for
the schools and parents who are
traveling with that. I really
appreciate it. I'm familiar
with the project, I'm familiar
with the the house as I said
very, very much so I think it
is higher density that in is
what the what is there now and
my major concern is traffic and
pedestrian safety. So I'll
leave it at that. Thank you.
thanks, vice mayor. We turn to
councilmember mckay. Thank you,
mayor. Thank you, vice mayor
foley for raising some of those
issues. I was going to cover a
couple of those things but I
really just wanted to start
when one of the callers came on
I think it was christine, one
of the appellant's she was
right. There was a tragic
collision or excuse me a tragic
incident that occurred at this
very intersection at about 1115
earlier today which I found out
about right before this
meeting. And it was a road rage
incident. And as vice mayor
foley pointed out, this has
been a challenging street
overall. Kerner is not just
at coddle but at hix and books
and and meridian and I know
going into council member
foley, vice mayor foley's and
councilmember duane's district
that's a kerner situation and
so we have a lot of work to do
to keep that a safer street
overall. So having said that, I
just want to thank the
applicant and and the
appellants for speaking today
and for following through on
the appeals process and for
sharing perspectives and
reasoning. And again I know
vice mayor covid this I want to
emphasize that our role on this
item is different than a
typical council agenda. We hear
this item as a quasi judicial
role and what is considered an
administrative appeal. So our
role is not to decide whether
we endorse the project at 1295
kerner avenue or not. It's
whether they have met the
obligations of the appeal and
really all of the project piece
of this was determined by the
director of planning at an
earlier hearing. So with that
as a backdrop based on
my review of the information
made available on the appeal
and the process the applicable
laws and procedures appear to
have been followed now having
said that, as the community is
aware our office shares many
of the concerns regarding
traffic safety at kerner and
connell and certainly
reinforced by the incident this
morning. We're actually
concerned about council overall
as I said before and will
continue to work on those
issues more broadly than just
this intersection. But last
year there was a collision
incident at kerner and cottle
and I think our dot
representative talked about
some of the things that
resulted from that. We've added
delineation and striping red
curbing and daylighting at the
intersection and for those
of you not as familiar I know
it was talked about there's a
park, a community garden, a
significant tennis facility
there will a glen middle school
and willow glen high school it
is very active and I want to
specifically recognize the
willow glen neighborhood
association and marian sedar
quest who really helped
spearhead some of the response
to that incident last year. Now
because of the type
of application this project is
under state law the city is
limited in what it can require
the applicant including traffic
mitigation improvements. But I
did want to mention that with
planning staff and during the
design process the developer
did move the ingress egress
farther. I think it is north on
cottle in order to get farther
away from the intersection due
to obvious concerns about more
crowding at the intersection >>
and I know you know this
doesn't appeal to everybody but
the developer is building less
units than they could have
under state law. And you heard
the parking ratio at three and
a half and you know that is
certainly an improvement to
what this could have been. And
as vice mayor foley pointed
out, I live right up the
street. I probably I think I
was on kerner and connell
intersection this morning on
the way here. I'm there very
frequently. I get it and I know
that is a challenge. But
there's also the property that
is there has contributed to the
challenge and yes there are
some fantastic trees on the
property but basically the
property is the site is so that
there's created a blind spot
right on curtin and right on
cottle because its foliage is
right out on to onto the
street. This project will
provide a greater setback
at the front edge to create a
little bit less a lot less of a
blind spot at that intersection
both traveling southbound on
cottle and westbound on and
kirchner >> so I do we have
john I know are you here for us
for dougherty today sir? Yes,
ma'am. Council okay so there's
been talk about we can't
mandate the developer do
traffic study right? We've been
doing some of our own because
in the midst of this process
we've had other incidents occur
and of course today we want to
I want to talk about what we
can learn from the accident
that occurred today or the
incident that occurred today.
but talk >> to me about what
what I'd like to recommend is
that we do a city initiated
traffic study. It's beyond what
we're doing for and maybe we
could sort of piece it together
with what we're doing for the
crossing guard program to test
whether that's going to be
something we can do at this
corner. But to make sure that
we have a baseline of where we
are pre-construction
construction and then the the
concept of a post construction
but after the occupancy and
let's say that we get to 75%
occupancy see of the 12 units
before we would initiate a
second after construction
traffic study with the notion
that we would do it during
school time just like we're
talking about or it's a foley
loaded schedule both schools
are back. Is that something
that we can accommodate and and
you know put on the record now?
>> yeah, definitely we can work
with their staff to make sure
that that can happen and we'll
use this opportunity to obtain
what we can call like existing
operations and data and then
post as you said seven 5%
occupancy afterwards we can
go back out there and look
at the situation and obtained
it again. >> so I want to make
sure that we're on the same
page in terms of this
pre-construction study, I want
to make sure that we have this
one piece that's working
through the system relative to
testing whether it would rise
to try a crossing guard. But
then the other piece that I'm
talking about is getting an
overall baseline that might
require some other data so on
to make sure we're on the same
page and we'll work together to
make sure that scoping is right
. That's right. Correct. Okay.
>> and then I don't know if
you've had any experience with
you know, whether or not
there's anything we can learn
and we won't know until the
coming days from the incident
today and whether or not that
was exacerbated by roadway
conditions caused by roadway
conditions. Was there any
relationship between the
intersection and what happened?
I don't think anybody
of nobody's been out of this
building today to necessarily
investigate that. But I want to
make sure that there's a police
department engagement and
really understanding whether or
not there's anything we can
learn from today that can
inform other measures that we
may take at that intersection.
>> yeah. D.o.t. Typically works
with the police department to
look at the police reports for
various collisions to
understand what were the causes
of the collisions in the
incidents. Yeah. So when that
will be available we'll will
definitely make sure that
that's part of the study that
we do out there. Okay. Thank
you. And >> to the vice mayor's
point, I'll just double down
that if there's any you know,
discoloration in the
intersection as we sit here
today, that's probably
something we can get out and
and take care of pretty
quickly. Yes, we can work with
our d.o.t. Pavement crews to
refresh, as we say, the
existing striping out there. I
mean we've >> been we've done
work out there most recently
but a lot of times we put in
the new work but we don't
really check the old stuff and
I think we should do that. So
>> turning away from traffic I
just want to go back to trees.
this has been a very hot topic
lately here at council. Yes
they are removing 24 trees but
as I understand it and minera
maybe you can check my math on
this the development will plant
81 new trees on this site which
is more than the 74 that would
be required at the site minera
can you confirm I have that
number right? Yes, that is
correct. So >> given the jury a
grand jury report we heard
at council last week, we know
how important trees are. I
think this will be helpful for
our tree canopy and the
well-being of our city. The one
thing I want to make sure we do
and I'm know I'm talking to the
chiefs of the department here
we have to make sure that every
one of those trees gets in the
ground, especially those street
trees, those ones that you know
matter the most to the people
that are expecting that we're
going to follow through when we
say we're going to expect trees
that they actually get planted.
so we want to make sure that
we're you know, on that before
they get their final. So I
would just say as a council
office and as your council
member will continue to work
with our residents and our
transportation partners as well
as us the san jose unified
school district leadership whom
we've spoken to before about
modifying school times which is
a state requirement and they
can't do that. That idea
of breaking up may be a little
bit different middle school
high school even five minutes
we've noted would make a huge
difference. State law >> will
not allow them to do that but
we'll continue to find ways to
keep our kids safe and working
with san jose unified on that.
>> I just want to say that
traffic safety I'm sort
of looking down the days here
it's probably top three for
every one of us as we hear from
our community and will continue
to be a point of interest. So
with that I do want to move
staff's recommendation to deny
the site development permit and
environmental appeals and to
approve this project second all
right, thanks council
appreciate >> all your good
questions and comments on the
trees. It may be a pet peeve
but with a strong preference
for native trees that are going
to actually provide real
longevity and canopy cover when
they get built out and what
little I don't know how you do
60 some we don't want little
ornamental things I think some
real real trees would be great.
okay what else anything else
from colleagues I'm not seeing
anything. So toni, we need to
vote on this item motion from
councilor mulcahy
. Motion passes >> unanimously.
okay. Thank you, toni. All
right. Thank you to staff we
are on to item 10.3. This is
the general plan four year
review policy framework going
to have a staff presentation
then we'll move to public
comment and then we'll come
back to the council for
discussion and a motion I do
want to just note for the
public and we have a lot
of folks here who want to speak
as I mentioned before, we
strongly encourage folks to not
cheer and boos so that we can
hear people can have their time
at the mic and we can be
efficient so we're not here
until midnight. I also want to
I see some very large signs and
I support your signs as an
expression of free speech.
however we ask you to keep them
down kind of in front of you
and do not block the person
behind you. Please be
respectful to your neighbors.
not everyone in the chamber
here agrees on this issue. I
think we're going to hear from
a wide range of perspectives.
one other note and toni, we'll
have more when we go to public
comment. Council members may
step back into the green room
to use the restroom or grab a
quick bite to eat. It's already
been a long day. We started
with closed session at 9:30
a.m. Today. I want you to know
that in the back we have the
full meeting on screens and
full audio so people are
hearing every bit of the
presentation, every public
comment. It is not a way for
council members to duck out on
you. I just want you to be to
rest assured. Okay chris, I'm
going to turn to you to begin
the staff presentation and then
we'll go to public comment.
thank you, mayor chris burton,
director of planning building
code enforcement. I'm joined
here today by mira sand here,
deputy director of planning and
then ruth cueto and jared
ferguson who are our principal
planners within our citywide
planning team and have really
been the leads on this effort.
so today we're here to present
our recommended policy
framework for our four year
review of the general plan
before we get into the
specifics, I just wanted to
talk about where we are in the
process and what it is that
we're asking the city council
to do today. Today's action,
just to be clear does not amend
our general plan. It doesn't
change the zoning
of residential properties and
it would not approve
development projects or in
title any particular parcel.
what we're asking the city
council to do today is to
provide us with direction on
the policies staff should
develop and analyze and then
bring back for formal
consideration the proposed
general plan amendments, zoning
changes and development
standards and then all the
supporting analysis for the
environmental work would then
return to the planning
commission and the city council
for public hearings in december
of 27 and they want to
highlight that as we continue.
I want to highlight that
because we continue to receive
as you can see considerable
additional input from residents
particularly about small
multifamily or what we call our
missing middle portion of this
work a a lot of that feedback
that we've received has
centered around the scale
of future development and its
direct impacts on immediate
neighbors and then the
cumulative effect of change
within our residential single
family neighborhoods. And so
you know I just want to be
clear that today is not the end
of that conversation. You know,
it's very much that we're
asking council to determine
what staff should go study and
what issues need to be
addressed before a final
decision is made. Okay. So why
now? So this work is part of a
longer housing planning process
that the city undertakes. It
began with the adoption of the
sixth cycle of a housing
element and then the
certification by the state's
department of housing and
community development that
occurred back in early 2023
city council saw this in 2022
when we often talk about the
housing element a lot of people
think about the regional
housing needs allocation number
that's the 62,000 residential
unit number that you often hear
spoken about. But the document
itself also includes over 90
policies that the city
committed to undertake to
promote the availability and
the diversity of housing
throughout san jose. Our most
recent housing element included
commitments to create the small
multifamily housing
opportunities as well as to
update our urban village
strategy which we'll touch on
as well. We'll as I said refer
to it multiple times throughout
this presentation. They're the
agency with the state that's
responsible for the
certification but also the
monitoring of the
municipalities housing elements
and they've made it very clear
that they'll continue to
monitor the city's
implementation of those
commitments throughout this
period. At the same time we're
looking to prepare for our next
housing element. That cycle
will run from 2031 to 2039 and
that's due to the state well it
needs to be certified by the
state prior to january 31st
of 2031. You know big picture
land use planning like this and
the type of decisions that are
needed to support a housing
element at this scale can't
just be done the last minute.
really what we're looking at is
major general plan amendments,
zoning changes, environmental
review as well as
infrastructure planning and all
of the community engagement
that needs to happen
sequentially. And so that's why
we're undertaking this review
right now at the midpoint
between those two housing
elements. So we're just trying
to give you a sense of the
overall timeline and put
today's decision in perspective
of the current housing element.
establish those commitments
that I spoke to council that
approved the scope of the full
year review in june of 2025. It
was a reduced scope and
direction and also included
using the planning commission
as the task force for this
particular four year review
which is different from the two
prior iterations that we had
completed and then we proceeded
to have them meet in that
compressed timeline between
october of 2025 and june
of 2026. So today is council is
considering that policy
framework as you then provide
us direction we'll begin the
environmental review process,
prepare all of the
documentation and zoning
amendments, the general plan
amendments and then develop the
actual program standards while
continuing to engage with the
public through the fall of 2027
we anticipate to be back in
full in front of council
probably by december of 2027
with the actual decisions the
proposed amendments I'm sorry.
yes. By december 27th and that
work will help us establish the
land use foundation for that
next housing element. And so
the reason that we're targeting
2027 is our last housing
element took us approximately
two and a half years to
complete and then we have an
additional sort of work with
hpd to actually get that done
and over the goal line before
january of 31. So this process
very much has a beginning, very
much has a middle and an ending
and right now we're kind of in
that middle phase. So just to
review the scope that council
gave us and we stuck fairly
well within that scope it did
expand slightly but first we
wanted to look at increasing
the residential capacity so the
current general plan plan for
about 120,000 residential units
the 62,000 units in the current
housing element pretty much
got us there on the total
capacity. So that we know by
2031 we're going to have to
identify additional units
throughout the city to meet the
state's goals. Secondly, the
scope was intended to help us
maintain an appropriate balance
between the number of jobs in
the city as well as the
employed residents. That's a
core element of our general
plan and then third and fourth
with the two commitments that
we made in the prior housing
element. So firstly that small
multifamily housing program and
then lastly updating our urban
village strategy which was a
commitment under program 40 and
the housing element. And so
each of these elements really
addressed a different part
of san jose's long term growth
strategy and the common
question throughout is how the
city can accommodate its
housing obligations while
continuing to plan for the
infrastructure, employment
services and complete
neighborhoods that we aspire
to. So the recommendations were
developed through that
taskforce process. We included
the community and stakeholder
outreach. Obviously staff is
heavily involved with our
analysis and then that's
brought forward through the
planning commission for their
consideration. It's really the
planning commission's
recommendation based on the
taskforce recommendation that
we're presenting today.
obviously the planning
commission wasn't asked about
final ordinance language. We
didn't get into details on many
of these programs. It was
really recommending the
structure of the framework that
staff can then use to begin
preparing all of the language
that will come back later that
the same is true for council's
action today and that framework
really establish all of the
issues that we need to analyze.
it certainly doesn't settle
every one of the design
standards or the geographic
considerations or even the
development requirements that
we expect to come from this
work. Those details will, you
know, really determine both the
effects of the program on local
neighborhoods as well as
whether it's likely to abuse
the housing that we are trying
to achieve and that work all
really still lies ahead. Okay.
so I did want to touch very
briefly on kind of where the
planning commission landed on
their recommendations. So the
planning commission recommended
moving forward with staff
changes to the several general
plan density ranges the land
use changes along the alameda
and on certain mixed use
commercial sites and sb 1333
sites that we identified. They
forwarded the recommendation
of a framework for public
public quayside public lands
throughout the city as well as
the update to the urban village
strategy and the small
multifamily program. They also
agreed with staff's
recommendation to maintain the
current jobs to employed
residents ratio target of 1.1.
so that's 1.1 jobs for every
employed resident. The
commission voted separately.
next slide on an individual
items sorry on that previous
one. And when the commission
voted they actually took all
of the items individually and
voted on each one. So just
wanted to note that on the
small multifamily program the
commission voted 9 to 2
recommend approval of that.
they did not they were not able
to get to a majority
recommendation on the proposed
winchester boulevard land use
changes. Therefore council has
the staff recommendation that
was presented to the task force
and the planning commission and
then obviously there are
alternatives described in the
memorandum from the
councilmembers. Okay. So I
wanted to spend the majority
of our time just discussing the
small multifamily housing
program because obviously this
is the portion of the work
that's really garnered the
greatest public interest at its
most basic version missing
middle housing refers to
housing forms somewhere between
a detached single family home
and a larger apartment building
and that may include, you know,
different types of housing such
as duplexes fourplex townhomes
or even sort of small apartment
buildings on larger lots. But
it's really designed at a
neighborhood scale, right? It's
intended to integrate with
existing neighborhoods. The
policy objective is to really
create more housing choices in
parts of the city where those
choices are limited somewhat
today. But obviously how we
create these standards has a
significant impact on the
outcomes for individual
properties and then the
surrounding neighborhoods in
those areas. The final number
of units on an individual
property can certainly be
affected by a number of things
that include parcel size, you
know adu requirements and laws,
density bonus law, how
properties are subdivided and
then there are other state
requirements that we have as a
consideration. I do want to
assure the council that you
know we've tried to be really
candid about that throughout
our outreach with the public
and throughout the task force
process and as we develop these
programs. So again, just a note
and you know I'm sure we'll
touch on this more as we get
into questions. Our small
multifamily housing program is
not in new obligation. You
know, this is not the first
time we introduced it through
this process. P35 is the
program in our housing element
and I just wanted to sort
of bring this up as a reference
not only did we include it in
housing element but it was also
referenced heavily in the
certification letter that we
received from hpd that you
know, really noted the creation
of this program as an important
move for san jose and its
housing element and the
included program contemplated
as written at least four and up
to ten units in locations
throughout the city. Those
commitments don't prescribe
every detail in the final
ordinance. They do mean that as
a city we must develop a
program that is legally
adequate and reasonably capable
of being used to meet those
obligations and commitments in
the housing element a program
that purely exists on paper and
produces no meaningful new
housing would not satisfy the
housing element for the
purposes of cdw's review and
that does represent a
compliance risk which we
believe is significant in
recent conversations that we've
had with the state. Failure to
implement our commitments in
the certified housing element
could expose the city to
financial penalties and
potential impacts on our
ability to approve certain
permits and ultimately the
possibility of decertifying our
housing element and the
reopening of the city to build
as remedy applications. You
know that's not something that
oecd takes lightly. It's also
not something that would be
immediate but it is something
that we've seen as you know, a
tool that they've used with
other communities throughout
california. I just want to be
clear the council does have
discretion in you know,
designing this program but that
discretion needs to be in the
context of clear understanding
that not all the alternatives
carry equal compliance risk.
okay. The other thing that I
think is really important that
we've been trying to highlight
through this process is to
recognize the existing
condition that we face today
which is not simply one home on
every residential parcel over
the past seven years we've seen
over 450 bills passed by the
state that impact our ability
and the way we approve housing.
our workers transition
significantly in that period
and the state has really
changed what can occur
throughout the city. So some
of the most important bills
that we deal with in single
family neighborhoods include
senate bill nine which allows
for a qualifying residential
parcel to accommodate either a
duplex can be subdivided into
two parcels or a combination
that could result in as many as
four primary units on the
existing single family lot.
senate bill 1123 creates
additional subdivision
opportunities on either a
vacant parcel or that's been
extended to include where you
can subdivide off the existing
home and the remainder of the
lot could accommodate up to ten
parcels. And then we also have
adu laws that allow allow
additional units beyond the
sort of base density and state
density bonus laws which can
increase allowable density and
provide as we saw in the
previous project a series
of waivers from some of our
local development standards and
those laws apply whether or not
san jose creates this program.
the question is therefore
really not whether resident
residential neighborhoods will
ever change. Some changes
already permitted by and
occurring under those existing
state laws. You know, I think
what we're trying to do with
our approach is create a local
pathway that produces housing
in a more coordinate gated and
predictable physical form with
objective standards that
address things like height
setbacks, lock coverage, open
space privacy access, all
of those other sort
of neighborhood conditions that
can remain within our control
as we design our own program
versus being subject to those
state laws. You know choosing
not to develop a local program
doesn't necessarily preserve
the status quo. I think that's
the point we're ultimately
trying to make and we are
certainly seeing a number
of these outcomes where
applicants are coming in and
layering various state laws in
different ways to maximize
their opportunity. So it's
going to touch a little bit on
density. I apologize that this
slide the text is a little
small. We can certainly dive
into the details but our
initial recommendation was to
evaluate an increase across the
residential neighborhood
designation to go from eight
units per acre to 32 dwelling
units per acre. So a typical
residential parcel throughout
san jose is somewhere between 5
and 6000ft². So if you see on
this chart between 3000 and
8000ft² you've got 84% of all
single family residential
parcels throughout the city. So
really what we're aiming for is
to raise that that base density
to allow for units on the vast
majority of parcels. I do want
to acknowledge as you'll see
at the bottom of that chart
that state adu requirements can
affect the potential total
number of units and we also
deal with state density bonus
on certain lots that requires
more units to start with but
that can affect the number
further for qualifying
projects. But ultimately when
you think about the vast
majority of parcels throughout
the city size constraints for
primary units you know will
ultimately limit how how they
will build out and what we will
ultimately see in these areas
beyond that number, obviously
there's a lot of work to be
done around development
standards so how can people
actually build and I think this
is the crux of the discussion
is these are the things that we
are able to implement as a city
under our program and have a
little bit more control. You
know density is only the one
part of the program. It's the
standards that will largely
determine what housing looks
like and feels like on the
ground. The current framework
would retain the existing
height limit in residential
neighborhood which is 35ft.
right now that provision is for
two and a half stories. We
would change that to three
stories. Two and a half means a
split level home can
essentially said the same
height. This allows you to use
that height more effectively to
use three stories and I have
some examples I'll show in a
moment just what that means. We
also develop objective
standards for setbacks floor
area ratio, things like lock
coverage, parcel size whether
or not we allow a lot mergers
you know some of the provisions
around historic properties and
other physical design
considerations and obviously
we've heard a lot about parking
as a concern as well from
staff's perspective. We began
with the city's current
citywide policy which is we
currently do not have a minimum
parking requirement but you
know, hearing not just from the
task force but from community
members and certainly some
of the memos that we've seen
from the city council, you
know, that is one of the things
that we want to bring into that
consideration. You know, there
are certain state laws that
impact our ability to implement
parking minimums across the
city and there's portions
of the city where because
of its proximity to transit
access we will not be able to
institute new parking minimums.
but there are parts of the city
that we can consider that. I
think just overall in creating
these programs we just need to
be mindful of balancing the
objectives to preserve
community character which is
really how we're approaching
this against standards that are
so restrictive that parcels
can't be built at all because
we know will run afoul of hpd
on that the work between now
and 2027 is really finding that
balance and a program that the
market could actually use you
know, with the strongest
locally enforceable standards
that we can reasonably
establish. We also need to look
sort of beyond the individual
parcel, you know, and think
about some of the bigger
issues. And again I think this
relates to the prior
conversation. So as we see
residential capacity increase
throughout the city, we need to
consider cumulative effects on
transportation, on utilities,
parks, schools, emergency
response as well as other
infrastructure. And again
that's much of the work that
occurs between now and the end
of 2027 and we also want to
make sure that we're evaluating
whether other general plan
policies ensure that new
development can reasonably
contribute to the services and
infrastructure that the
residents will need. Okay. So I
just wanted to highlight just a
couple of examples. Now these
are examples in san jose.
they're not currently in
residential neighborhood
because this is the change
we're proposing but there are
adjacent to existing single
family neighborhoods so this
property is 39 lester avenue.
this is a 40 500 square foot
parcel. There's three units
they have four parking spaces.
the height of this building is
actually just above right? So
you know, this is again not in
a residential neighborhood so
you know, standards wouldn't
allow this. It would be
slightly lower. But so the
density of what this project is
is about 30 units to the acre
right now. So it just gives you
a sense of the scale of that
type of development. The next
example this is on park avenue
at 1945 park. Again we sort
of took a slightly zoomed out
version and you can kind of see
how the lot relates to the
surrounding area. This is a
larger lot. This is almost an
8000 foot lot and again, you
know the market's coming in to
really dictate how they
approach development on these
in this instance it's a three
unit project so this is you
know, lower this is 17 units to
the acre but this is what the
developer at the time felt like
was applicable. I think just
the important thing as we talk
about those standards the
difference between two and a
half stories and three stories
is the three stories allow that
parking to be on the ground
floor, right? And then you get
two livable stories above it.
and so that's how it's being
accommodated in that
configuration. Those are
separate so I just wanted to
finish on some next steps and
our timeline I think for the
next I know you could if
council provides direction
today staff will prepare draft
general plan amendments, zoning
ordinance changes objective
development standards and
environmental analysis will
continue to do engagement with
the community with residents as
well as property owners,
housing advocates, developers,
neighborhood organizations and
other affected stakeholders.
when this work returns in 2027,
council will have the actual
proposed policy language and we
will be looking for
opportunities to engage with
committee and council in
advance of that we'll also have
the environmental analysis and
the results of additional
outreach and a clearer
understanding of the kind
of legal, physical and economic
implications of the
alternatives. And really that's
the point when council will
decide what to adopt. The
additional constraint I do just
want to touch on and then I'm
going to talk a little bit
about some of the memos that
council put forward is
obviously the other
consideration we have as we
go into the next phase
of development is staff
capacity. You know we have this
tight time frame and we're
working towards that formal
consideration in december of 27
and the work you know has to
position the city to begin
preparing that next housing
element as we've previously
discussed, our citywide
planning capacity is limited.
we'll be back in front
of council on october 6th so a
little over a month to review
the work plan and talk about
priorities and so we'll be
taking all of the work that
council directs today and
wrapping it into that analysis
so we can just show kind
of where all of that sits. So
you know, we just want to
highlight that as we think
about the different
alternatives and as we look
at different things to study
and evaluate like all of that
kind of goes into those
aspects. So we did just want to
touch briefly on the memos that
we received from the city
council just to kind
of highlight some of the pieces
in there. So firstly the memo
from the mayor,
councilmember campos cohen, the
vice mayor and
councilmember casey, you know,
I think there's a number of the
recommendations here absolutely
we can accommodate within the
analysis such as the parking
minimums, the reference to the
pickup work and then the
neighborhood serving commercial
and some of the considerations
there. The two things that we
just wanted to touch on
obviously as I was just noting
on capacity to the extent that
we could have you know, very
broad on our ranges that's
additional analysis that we
have to do so does potentially
impact our timeline. We did
talk to aicd earlier this week
and I can dive in a little bit
more about some of those
conversations but I think one
of our considerations from that
conversation is that 16 when
you think about an 8000 foot
lot right now gets you a single
unit at eight to the acre if
you do a lot split under sb
nine that's essentially 16 to
the acre. And so aicd confirmed
that that they're understanding
the 16 to the eight doesn't
really significantly move us
forward so that would be a
concern just as a risk as we
think about that. The other was
the recommendation around the
cottle road, the south side
community center. This is just
a technical note that will
bring back in the analysis the
community center in the fire
station are on the same parcel.
so we would just recommend
keeping the fire station as
peaky otherwise we're fine with
that one. Next up I just wanted
to reference quickly the
accounts the memo from
councilmembers ken dallas ortiz
and mulcahy. And so again I
think the conversation around
the second general plan
amendment cycle is something we
can accommodate and the
discussion around the mixed use
commercial sites around west
san carlos is consistent with
the staff approach obviously
you know I'm sure we'll have a
conversation around the mixed
use neighborhood sites and
around the corry neighborhood.
I think you know councilmember
little katie, you know you've
put forward your recommendation
through this memo as we think
about that, you know the net
unit yield on those sites is
relatively low. So just being
mindful of, you know, the
benefit of maintaining some
of the commercial right versus
going to smaller projects as
far as the streamlined process
around steps on peak plans,
that's something we would refer
to the budget process obviously
as a cost recovery department
we don't have the ability to
reduce fees in any way so
council would have to
supplement that program with
additional money to support
those applications. And then
lastly sort of ground up on
this one I apologize. I do want
to touch on the recommendation
about geographic exclusions. I
think you know, certainly we'd
been considering the impact on
fire severity zones and it's
something we're very mindful
of and sort of you know,
expanding that and being really
careful about how we plan that
is something we definitely want
to accommodate. I do want to
talk about the areas with
medical high vmt, the planned
development areas as well as
the area specific plans. The
challenge we run into with
limiting geography is that p35
in the housing element
explicitly called out high
resource areas and we talk
about this and we can happily
go into more details but I did
want to just show a map of our
high resource areas and so the
very dark blue and the sort
of teal color that doesn't come
through very well in the screen
but the darker colors are our
high resource areas and they
tend to align with many
of those geographic exclusions.
and so we feel that, you know,
there's a potential for us to
run afoul of the intent of the
program to provide those
opportunities in high resource
areas if we start to exclude
them through some of these
geographical exemptions. And
then the memo from
councilmember committee and to
rios, I think for the most
part, you know, we can
absolutely accommodate this in
the analysis we did just want
to point out that the work with
idr is actually we actually
have language included in the
pledge priorities around
density bonus law. It's an
issue that we've run up against
recently. I did also want to
acknowledge the memo from
councilmember dwan. Obviously
there's less of a focus for
city work for staff work and
that's obviously more of a
conversation for city council
as far as deferring the
discussion. So there's a lot
there certainly there's a lot
more detail that we're happy to
go into as a part of the
discussion and so staff's
available for questions. Thank
you chris. Just as I turn to
toni to begin public comment, I
believe we have over 100
comment cards in the chamber
and likely over 100 online. So
even at a minute per speaker
we're going to be here for a
while. So again, I want to
thank you all for your time,
your participation. This is
this is democracy. I think it's
great. I do want to note that I
know folks are going to be are
going to want to cheer and boo
and again, that's just going to
slow us down and force us to
stop and ask for order in the
chamber. So I'd ask that you
help us move efficiently
through what may be 2 or 3
hours of public comment. Toni,
please I'll turn to you >> as a
reminder speakers must comply
with the city's code of conduct
for public meetings. Please
direct comments to the body
limit remarks to the agenda
item and observe the time limit
conduct that materially
disrupts the meeting or
interferes with others ability
to participate may result in
muting or removal as authorized
by law. I have 118 cards in
person I have not looked I have
16 hands are up so far 119
people online. I'm going to
call between 20 and 30 names in
person. Then I'll bump over
online and call a few names
there and then I'll go back and
forth with the larger group
being the in person if you want
to speak and then exit we ask
you to exit quietly because
there's so many speakers we
don't want the people at the
end of the queue to have to
wait extra time because we need
to quiet people down. Thank
you. So in the order that we
received your cards larry james
come on down robert. Robert
squirrel doug andre kristen
brasi, jim wendling and michael
schumacher. Come on down larry
james are larry and larry
james. Yes. Thank you very
much. Yeah, I stood up when you
were five. It's confusing
my ready to go I start. Hello
mayor. Man and sound of the
city council. Thank you for
having me and thank you very
much for your dedicated
service. This is a very
important issue to
me personally. I am larry
james. I'm a resident of the
city of santa clara. I am a
small business owner currently
launching a startup called the
always outdoorsman. I think
this issue is extremely
important because number one I
have a very large concern about
the lack of affordable housing
as a percentage of the total
that the state is imposing on
the cities. Right. Is it 2% or
I don't know what it is but
okay, it's higher than that.
but whatever it's not enough,
right? We don't have enough
affordable housing and that is
the crisis right? So I would
urge the city of san jose to
make sure that you are using
your properties that are
available to you and build
large complex as much as
possible. Right. So that you're
centralizing you know you want
to build these smart cities and
what whatever you're doing and
I think that's great but what
really concerns me >> I'm sorry
that your time >> that's okay.
I'll keep an eye on this. Yeah.
next speaker okay. Good
evening. My name is rob. I'm a
principal planner at vta. We
submitted a comment letter on
friday. It's included in packet
seven of the public comment
just to reiterate whittier
urges the city council to adopt
the framework recommended by
the planning commission
including the recommendation in
the small multifamily category
to increase the density of our
end to 32 units to the acre.
vta also notes the city set a
progressive direction in 2012
excuse me 2022 of adopting a
transit first policy as well as
removing minimum parking
requirements and we encourage
the city council to build on
those previous policies with
this general plan for a review.
and finally we would like to
continue to work with the city
city staff to look for a path
for allowing residential mixed
use and the vta sereny and
santa teresa and sites. Thank
you very much. >> thank you.
next speaker matt larson and
michael young come on down.
yes, my name is jim wendling.
I've lived here in san jose for
over seven years and we have
moved into our third house as
we've moved up from our starter
house and the house and our
we're in our third house and
it's a very nice single family
residential area and what I see
is a risk to people like us
from what's happening and I
know we need more housing but
it's not clear what direction
you're going in will provide
more truly affordable housing.
but when I heard the situation
that was discussed before us
today and you approved 1210 or
11 and nothing for something
that had potential hazards and
driving conditions right there
and then you're going to check
later to see if it worked out
okay. I know you don't like
doing those kinds of things.
you'd rather be doing other
things but we're going to
go into a world where if you
approve what's promoted thank
>> you that your time next
speaker no. Mayor >> mehan
council members my name is
michael young, member of the
planning commission. I'm
speaking to you today as a
private citizen. What these
proposals are is what kind of a
city we want to have going >>
forward. Do we want to have a
city that's only affordable for
people who work in tech and
people like myself who've been
here a long time or do we want
to have a city that's
affordable for working people?
that's what this is about. We
need to increase the supply
of rental multifamily
properties, increasing density
in our single family
neighborhoods is the best way
>> to do that. You know, just a
reminder we will remove people
from the chamber if they're
disrupting the meeting this
individual gets his minute
of public comment and his free
speech his first amendment
rights like everybody else. Can
we please rewind the clock to
where we pause and begin? Thank
you. Go ahead, sir. Thank >>
you. Mayor meehan. What I
learned from my parents is much
who are given much is expected.
so I feel as a >> resident in a
single family neighborhood I
need to give back and the best
way I can get back is to be
open to some changes if a
triplex. >> okay, thank you
john klemski come >> mazursky I
butchered that name john come
on down and lynn paulson
go ahead. Honorable mayor and
city council I am a longtime
resident of district nine and
live in the homestead acres
housing track adjoining the
boundary of los gatos is an old
neighborhood of very large lots
and semi-rural nature. We were
annexed into the city over our
strenuous objections not too
long ago developers sought to
build nine houses on a single
lot and homestead acres and was
turned down by the city. That
would not happen under this
proposal. The resulting
disintegration of cohesive
neighbors and overflowing
parking and increasing traffic
will be a negative impact on
the quality of life that we've
worked so hard to maintain. I
call upon you to protect our
established neighborhoods and
communities with reasonable
with reasonable densities.
please vote no thank you. Thank
you. Next speaker okay. Good
evening. I'm kristen from
district ten five generations
of my family and born and
raised in san jose. And
my concern is that you're
forgetting about us. I'm not
against affordable housing.
there are some built by
my house that are not full.
there's a massive one being
built down the street and
there's another one that's
planned to be developed in the
next couple of years and I ask
that you take into
consideration the impact
of utilities parking and
traffic also I don't think we
need to build because there are
some in the area I don't think
that they should be built in
my neighborhood sorry single
family >> single family homes
like mine should the
neighborhood should stay single
family homes. So please >>
thank you that your time next
speaker I'm robert wood. I'm a
housing chair of the california
family association san jose
state chapter. I'm also
speaking for bill armor line.
our political director who had
to leave and we appreciate what
the city planning has done in a
thoughtful effort to work on
residential neighborhoods. Also
appreciate the thoughtful
concerns of the city
councilmember but we're very
concerned about key areas
of opportunity either omitted
in this proposal. Number one,
the growth areas in the
existing plan we have 7.4 miles
supposed to produce most
of 170,000 units and
unrealistic rules and abandoned
are preventing abandoned
commercial and office spaces
from being developed nonprofit
organizations are not being
able to build housing on their
land and we have 85mi² of land
where zoning prohibits all
housing just a little bit
of that. There are some
excellent opportunities in
those areas. Sacramento and
san diego. >> thank you that
your time larry ames come on
down and cindy h. Hi, I'm matt
larson. I work in land use and
housing policy for the last
decade and is with that
background that I say the
following this is >> great the
policy framework will have a
meaningful impact on actually
building the housing that
san jose is striving to build.
staff planning, commission and
council all deserve our praise.
there's also a lot of great
additional policy in the >>
council memos. The mayor's memo
adds needed flexibility for
building affordable housing
that can dallas a mulcahey or
t's proposal for additional
general plan amendment cycle
will help small developers who
can't take on the carrying cost
that larger institutional
groups can and the tordillos
command memo and local density
bonus streamline and will be
attractive to homebuilders
while delivering san jose the
development standards it
desires. There's also they also
raise a most important point.
whatever you do don't risk
housing element decertification
and thank you all for your hard
work. Thank >> you. Next
speaker. My name is lynn
paulson. I oppose the proposal
to revise the general plan to
increase density allowances for
most single family home
parcels. There are many reasons
I'm opposed but I wanted to
highlight the impact this could
have on the tree canopy. I was
at the council meeting last
week where you reviewed the
response to the grand jury
report regarding the decline
of san jose's tree canopy which
is important to all residents
in the city. During the
discussion at the august 11th
council meeting, the city
forester stated that the
greatest opportunity to
reversing this decline in tree
canopy could be a focus on
actions related to residential
parcels. Instead you have
before you a proposal for
increased density on single
family home parcels. That would
again put the tree canopy issue
on low priority while not
helping to reverse the current
downward trend. Let alone meet
the goal you have for 2051.
thank you. Thank >> you. Next
speaker jo dan from d-10 and
paul come on >> down. I'm john
paul mazursky and I was
surprised to hear about the
high density housing plan being
proposed. I attended one of the
neighborhood meetings but had
no other communication from
anywhere about the extent
of the proposed plan. This plan
would allow density in the city
of san jose to be greater than
new york city. That's your view
of the city. That's what's
being proposed. This is a city
with no real mass transit.
already long commute times that
we have everywhere. How are we
going to pay for that mass
transit parking? They're
talking about putting those
plans in place but it's going
to be difficult. And I've
talked to many of your
constituents and to a person
they're just incredulous that
this amount is being proposed.
and as I understand this, once
you change the density to a a
higher density you won't be
able to reduce it later. So you
need to make your decision with
your eyes open. So I support
the need for new housing but I
think you need to suggest that
the planners do take they'll
take a look at taking those
high density areas in certain.
I'm sorry that your time next
speaker. >> larry ames d six
neighborhood leaders group as
we said in a letter we do have
the need for more housing. The
state says we must update our
plans which will change our
city. But please don't overdo
it. These changes will be hard
to undo. We do need to increase
increased density. But 32 years
an acre citywide is excessive
and d six we have many good
missing middle infill projects
in japan centric in walkable
neighborhoods and working out
around 16 units in acre. The
mayor's memo 2.1 b calls for
staff to study this lower
density. You the growth in
mayor's.18 and four minimum
parking standards and analysis
memo. Don't build high density
out and transit poor areas. The
state law calls for some
objective standards so our
guidelines will need updating.
and please ask south to find
objective ways to our granting
density bonuses, concessions
and waivers. We want to work to
work with the council and the
city to make san jose better.
>> thank you. Next speaker
my my >> historical
neighborhood opposes the boxy
ideas that are being presented
following our different ideas
that might help put the housing
>> item on these boxy houses
and put parking lots underneath
them rather than putting the
parking anywhere and
neighborhood the streets. Place
more housing near existing high
rises that high rise housing
should not be there because
that's where they work. Work
with our county government to
place housing around that. The
techie >> areas where they
work. Put business and housing
around our large regional
parks. Most of them have
nothing. Protect our historical
housing communities and thank
you. That's your time. Next
speaker. >> dear leaders please
vote no on the framework as is
it must include minimum parking
any housing needs realistic off
street parking because working
class people need their cars.
few workers have good train or
bus service to their workplace
at both ends of the work shift.
a 16 unit building with no
parking brings about 24 cars
that compete for curb space.
this opens a parking war in
boston. People hoard curb space
with old furniture and
vandalize any car displacing
that rivalry leads to vandalism
escalating to violence.
chicago's infamous projects
lack parking and don't help
residents hold down jobs.
arrogant people say I'm
interested in space for people
not cars meaning I'm a people
person. I don't care what you
need. Okay. Please continue
building housing near transit.
please be practical and include
parking. Again I can't stress
this enough I spent a whole
career working with factory
people working second and
third. >> thank you. Next
speaker series qa. Come on
down. Ron >> no last name and
robert. >> okay. I'm
paul parrott and pretty much
everything he said the
community has high density
areas single family
neighborhoods, countryside.
bottom line is we do not want
our neighborhoods destroyed. We
spent quite a bit of time
protecting them. Turns out the
council actually works for us.
so if the council votes yes for
this. Anyone that votes for
this and raise >> your hand.
I'm against it. No clapping.
are you against it? Raise your
hand. No clapping. Okay.
everyone I've talked to is
vietnamese lee against this.
all right. So any council
person that votes to to do this
we are going to recall and
it'll be about the easiest
recall we'll ever see. Okay.
and I know you want to run
again in 28. I read the article
you won't be around. So there
you go. Thank you. Next speaker
>> we need to ask >> yourself a
simple question what kind
of city do we want san jose to
be? For generations people have
worked their entire lives to
buy in a mature, established
neighborhood. They paid their
mortgages, property taxes and
their fair share. That home was
more than an investment. It was
an american dream. This isn't
simply about adding housing. It
fundamentally changes the
character of a neighborhood.
the families worked decades to
create and preserve. We have to
ask are we solving a housing
problem? Are we sacrificing the
quality of life and established
neighborhoods because of higher
density produces more tax
revenue and development fees?
we need responsible growth like
growth at any cost. Please
protect our mature
neighborhoods. Respect the
people who work their whole
lives to own them and make sure
san jose remains the city where
the american dream is protected
not taken away. >> thanks.
thank you. Next speaker >>
alice and katherine matheson.
come on down. Good evening.
forgive me if I don't make
sense. I'm very nervous. I'm
sorry. Should you not sign as a
state and an intern for vote on
climate in san jose
environmentally sustainable
land use practices are
imperative for our city despite
a dedicated section for
environmental stewardship. The
general plan does not outline
public health or environmental
studies and regulations high
energy demanding buildings.
this city has stressed its
commitment to implementing
rigorous environmental
standards on water and energy
use. However, noise ordinance
noncompliance and reports
of rolling blackouts for
residents the use of fossil
fuel generators for backup
power and potable water line
easements are inadequate to
achieve this city's stated
commitments. The lack of care
in the general plan is
worrisome in the lead up to
developing uniform standards. I
urge this council to include
plans for both cumulative
impact studies and robust rules
for covering water and clean
power use for such buildings.
thank you so much. Thank you.
next speaker. Also brenda
doleman, come on down. >> I'm
here to urge you to vote no on
item 10.3. It's missing middle
mom sense. This proposal goes
far beyond any state
requirement. No other city in
santa clara county goes it
comes anywhere close to
sweeping. It would allow a
three story building high
density of virtually any
residential lot with no onsite
parking requirement and no
firebreak approval. Once it's
on the books these projects
skip public hearings, planning
commissions review or even
council vote. The impacts are
permanent. More cars are
already on already crowded
streets and a strain on
utilities and roads and
according to the city's own
study. Little to no affordable
housing is even produced.
limited public comment by so
far cannot be mistaken for
support. Many of us are only
now learning about how far road
and irreversible these changes
are. Please reject this
proposal at least take it off
the consent calendar and allow
for public hearing at least.
thank you. Next speaker. Do you
know what fulfilling an
american dream means? It's not
living in a condo, an apartment
or in some high density housing
but the ability to live in a
single family house with our
own little yard. It's absurd
that now you're seriously
proposing to destroy every
single family and neighborhood
permanently on the neighborhood
to build high density housing
on single family lots. I'm
guessing that all >> of you are
currently living in your own
single family home without an a
unit or even sitting in an
apartment right next to your
house. So why would you wish
other people to live in such a
condition? So say it's not hong
kong. There is no lack of space
to provide additional apartment
building without messing with
the existing single family
neighborhood. Just look
at block and block of vacant
old high tech building in north
san jose with zero productive
use. Please vote no for this
nonsensical proposal. You do
not want to be remembered as
the one who permanently
destroys >> san jose and thank
our next speaker. >> I'm going
to call wait before there and
I've already spoken. So I >>
know you can only speak once on
each item. I'm sorry. Thank
you. I'm going to >> go ahead
and come up to the microphone.
before you speak I'm going to
call five people online. Next
I'm going to go ahead and say
their names so they can kind
of wake up. Caller 7 to 0 five
brian, diane todd and james >>
patterson. Go ahead. Mayor and
council members reject the
missing middle >> framework
recommendation in the general
plan for your review. San jose
residents do not want three
storey apartment complexes by
right in residential
neighborhoods without parking.
smart growth means
concentrating density along
commercial corridors, transit
hubs not quiet residential
streets while urban sprawl
creates long term municipal
budget deficits. Sb 79 already
impacts over 40,000 parcels
near transit stops unlocking up
to 500,000 units for decades to
come. Sb >> nine permits four
units per lot to not go beyond
state minimums to strain our
infrastructure, stretch
emergency services and worsen
our job to housing ratio cap
residential neighborhood
density at four units per lot.
we need direct leadership.
please direct our planning
director city manager ig our
team to aggressively lobby hk a
bag drop off in sacramento.
thank you. That's >> your time.
caller 7205 please press star
six to unmute >> and that's
your last four digits of your
number. >> hello. Yes go ahead.
yes >> I'm sj born and raised
south san jose will go in high
school class of 2000. I got to
say the beauty of willow glen
is its long standing trees,
nature communities and single
family homes. This is pure
developer greed. There are
better places for small condos
especially along monterey road
towards downtown. Don't ruin
san jose. Be careful of the
precedence that we set. If
single family homes for single
families. >> thank you. >>
thank you brian followed by
diane. Thank you. I can't see
the place where I was
at because I signed something
but I had a house and it
disappeared. And now you can
go out there and visit and
there's literally thousands
of units on top of there. If
people tell you they're going
to build moderately it gravity
will fail before that happens.
sometime what I'm going to I
wrote an email that covers all
the stuff everybody said.
sometimes you want to walk
outside, look up and see the
stars. I understand that's
emotional and so it doesn't
have any meaning and never have
but I can just tell you walk
softly because once this stuff
gets in place it won't go away
and they will go to the maximum
whenever they get a chance.
thank you. Thank >> you, diane
followed by todd in high high.
please both know to submit our
recommendation. The general
plan has an urban reserve area.
why isn't the urban area being
considered for high density
housing plan planning? Is that
of. Isn't this the ideal
situation >> to use that
reserve? There is a lot of land
there that is not open space.
it has almost zero density. I
recommended to use that are
going to visit the area for the
estate certification instead
of disrupting all the
neighborhood of the city. Thank
you. >> thank you, todd
followed by james. Hello. When
so many residents take the time
to oppose this agenda item only
to see memorandums offering
concessions to wealthier
suburban todd you cut out these
>> plans purposely pit
communities against each other
while residents simply struggle
to protect their neighborhoods.
this entire process feels
performative and our concerns
are ultimately ignored. I live
in an urban transit village
area so I'm here to support
other neighborhoods and
advocate for what is best for
san jose as a whole. We haven't
even seen the impacts of the
urban villages or these new
state laws yet and we are
already moving to implement
blanket policies that strip
away local oversight. Giving up
our voice makes no sense. Also
no parking >> needed near
trent. Thank you james. Before
I click allow to speak I'm
going to call a few names for
people in person so you can
make your way down while james
is speaking. I have cole buford
bar a c quack. >> it looks
like. So I guess why wake sioux
>> and ute or garza? Okay
james, I'm letting you speak
now. >> I reso reside in oak
grove neighborhood in district
two. Having seen impacts on
my neighborhood when apartments
were allowed to change their
parking rules from multiple
cars for free to one free and
any others a monthly charge in
the carnage it laid to the
surrounding neighbors. I
emphatically say this is a
poorly thought out solution and
I would expect the city council
and mayor to vote no on this
item. This is in direct
conflict to beautify sj as it
will lead to beautiful
neighborhoods. It will
ultimately force neighbor
against neighbor parking wars.
to see actual impacts just
stroll down walnut blossom
avenue and the surrounding
streets across from the
apartments including haze and
lead avenue in the evening and
talk to residents in that area.
this will break the very fibers
of a good neighborhood if
allowed to move forward. I
expect nonsense ideas like this
from the current presidential
administration but not from
my city leaders. I saw input
posted indicating the city that
your >> time next speaker in
person. Hello. My name's cole.
>> I do agree with a lot
of other folks that you know,
no parking minimum would be a
bad idea because people have
cars and made a move into these
spots hoping to you know will
park on the street anyways and
that it does create lot
of difficulties for working
class folks. Also I would
recommend that the general plan
also include any kind
of reviews of data centers or
large energy projects as I do
believe in the humanist values
of 2040 plan such as healthy
neighborhoods and you know data
centers are also hungry for
land as well and I hope that
these data centers are not
taking priority over more
housing. >> thank you. Thank
you. Next speaker I'll wait for
mahan. He could hear you in the
back. >> council members I'm
guilford bar for two years in
district ten. Please reject
item 10.3 the proposal >> would
quadruple density in
neighborhoods designed for
single family homes allowing
for two six units by right no
parking requirements, no public
hearings that means no notice,
no neighbor input, no account
just permanent citywide
rezoning. Here's what troubles
me most saturday doesn't >>
need this to meet state
mandate. We can hit our 62,000
target homes under the existing
general plan which already
directs growth toward transit
corridors. This isn't about
opposing more housing. It's
about opposing a permanent >>
change that bypasses residents,
invites investor driven
redevelopment and eliminates
public voice in there. >> thank
you that your time? Next
speaker. >> hi my name is all
too I am from dayton. Two
things one you don't have a
walkable city and some say if
you want to build housing that
overcrowded or places it will
lead to a place where nobody
can park and that means you
need to build a walkable city
first. >> second, I would you
like to look at the
sociological sociological
impact this has? First of all,
if you have overcrowding in
places you will get people
having more crime, higher crime
rates, you will have more
vandalism. You will have stuff
like more what's it called road
rage and you will make people
not being proud in their
neighborhoods anymore because
if you want to have people have
pride in something they need to
have a say in something. Thank
you. Thank you. Next speaker
michael bryant. Come on down,
katherine. Look, no last name.
go >> ahead. I urge you to
reject this so-called missing
middle housing plan forcing up
to 16 unit apartment buildings
into single family home
neighborhoods with no onset
parking, drastically reduced
setbacks and no public input
will not magically produce
lower income homes. That's not
leadership. That's a pipe
dream. This doesn't improve the
quality of life for residents
of san jose. Instead it
enriches investors and
developers. This plan will
continue to destroy the
standard of living and impact
the safety of residents in your
community. San jose has
certainly had its share
of problems over the last
years. The california state
auditor found that not only
could the 300 million set aside
to help the homeless not be
adequately accounted for but
also that san jose had no
cohesive plan for building
affordable homes. This is
anything but a cohesive plan.
this is madness. As noted, this
plan is not needed to achieve
the current reno numbers.
future reno developments should
be planned near transit. Why
would you want to be on record
in contributing to the decline
of quality of life in san jose?
your job is to make san jose
better and safer. Vote >> now.
thank you, mr. Speaker. I >>
ask you again to please use
your jazz >> hands or however
you want to do it quietly so
that we can get through these
all quietly and respectfully.
>> yeah, because you want to
hear people like me, don't you?
right. You want to hear people
like me because I vote for you
to reject this. Do you guys
want to live next door >> to a
housing project I would build?
I don't think so. I would build
a mini cruise ship if anyone
knows what a cruise ship is.
okay. Yeah. People know, don't
they? Wouldn't you? I mean any
of you. Would you want me to
live next door to you and build
something? Ask yourself that
any one of you on the dais. Ask
yourself if you want to live
next door to me. I don't think
so. What I would build you
wouldn't like you could turn
into section eight. That could
be terrible, wouldn't it? Could
you imagine that this thing is
designed for specular data's
flippers developers? Just take
a look at the >> fair downtown.
no one wants to live in it.
that was approved of high
density housing. I call it the
fail. And that's exactly what
this is going to be. If if you
guys allow this to happen, it's
going to is going to turn our
neighborhoods into something
that you don't want to live in
and you don't want me to live
next door to you if you vote
for this because you wouldn't
like I could guaran >> thank
you that your time. Darrell
come on down. And and melissa,
I >> strongly urge you to vote
no on the permanent stay
missing middle proposal. The
reason why is I can't describe
to you. According to this plan,
my rising neighbor can build up
to six housing units >> in
my left side. Neighbor can >>
build up to 12 units. And every
one if every unit need two
cards. I do. My calculation is
a 50 >> six cards and you don't
require any outside parking.
and I tell you I'm down to my.
my street is a school. And you
know that school >> traffic. So
you tell me why. Why? Sure I
do. And they can be close to
the property line and find
my approval. They don't need
hearing. Don't need the
neighbor input public input.
and once they approve it's a
permanent >> and reversible.
and also >> thank you that your
time. Go come on down. Lori
droste, good evening. Good
afternoon. My name is michael
bryant. You've all gotten many
emails from me since august and
I've only heard from two people
on this council. This is campus
office and I got a face on with
george casey. So I don't know
where the rest of you been but
I'm upset about that. I
strongly >> am against us. I've
lived in san jose for 68 years.
I got my first house when I was
22 years old. It took me 80
hours a week to pay that
mortgage. I got my second house
when I got close to 30 and I'm
living out in santa teresa now
in a nice neighborhood. And it
took me 80 hours a week to pay
that house to I was in
my mid-forties almost 50. So
now I'm retired. I'm living
there. I'm comfortable. And
this is not going to work for
me. So you guys need to rethink
this because I guarantee you
anybody that votes for this I
will do everything I can to get
you thrown out in the next
election. >> thank you. Next
speaker. >> good evening. And
paulson representing yimby law
in be lost sent you a letter >>
today supporting this up
zoning. I'll summarize >>
something like preventing
someone from building four
townhouses on their own
property is a huge property
right restriction. The supreme
court and the roberts court in
particular have shown a lot
of deference to property rights
saying that if a city restricts
property rights it has to be
the least restrictive way to
achieve their goal. Yimby >>
law believes that single family
zoning >> is >> not the least
restrictive way to achieve any
goal. And they are prepared to
go to court to enforce >> this
work. You should support >>
this proposal because it's
right and >> thank you that
your time. Milo trout come on
down. Terrace salon and
patricia macdonald. >> good
evening mayor and city council.
I suppose I'm one of those rare
examples of a single family
homeowner who likes living
between two multiplexes. I'm
here to speak in support of the
staff recommendation and the
tordillos in the committee
memo. We all feel the effects
of the housing crisis just this
year we saw the elementary
school down our block close.
we've seen more friends priced
out of our city and we've seen
our workers driving long
commutes because they can't
afford to live in a city that
they serve. This week
my sister's visiting from new
york to celebrate her first
pregnancy the first baby in the
family born in our generation.
I wish she could afford to move
here and raise my future nephew
closer to family instead
of thousands of miles away. >>
but like for the majority
of our residents already living
here, that dream is too far out
of reach. Proposals like this
are about more than numbers
of dwelling units per acre.
there are concrete steps you
can take right now to reverse
years of an action that has led
to this housing crisis. Today
we've heard from a lot
of people who have lived in
san jose for. >> thank you that
your time. Next speaker. >>
hello, I'm laurie drost,
housing policy director at spur
and a former berkeley city
council member where I authored
missing little housing and
parking reforms. We can't solve
a housing shortage by making
housing harder to build. Please
maintain at least 32 dwelling
units per acre. That is already
really modest allowing duplexes
triplexes and smaller
multifamily homes. When a
detached home costs 1.7 million
the american dream
of homeownership is slipping
out of reach. Messy middle
housing creates another path
and opens more neighborhoods to
more families. Also, please
don't bring parking
requirements back artificial
mandates consume land, increase
cost and make small projects
infeasible. These homes may
stand for 100 years. We can't
predict how people will travel
in 2126. Please maintain 32
units per acre, reject parking
minimums and keep the american
dream within reach. >> thank
you. Next speaker current home
yo come on down and linda fall.
>> I'm terri >> swain. I'm a
local realtor here in san jose.
I'm california did not mandate
>> 32 dwelling units per acre.
that was with san jose's that
was san jose's choice the
planners. Then use the number
>> to create the figures for
the missing middle chart. The
planners showed no data. Why
2622 or 18 wouldn't have worked
instead of 32. Before moving
forward please ask planning may
model several lower density
alternate is including the
lowest additional capacity
required by hpd. After after
taking into >> account capacity
that will already be provided
through sb nine and other state
pels planning has paso level
data use roi is helpful and
make policy decisions but not
to make policy decisions but to
quickly model different
scenarios and incorporate
public feedback. Thank you that
your >> time next speaker may
or may hand council members I'm
>> a san jose resident and a
member. Hi. Wait how did that
>> happen? Go ahead. >> hi.
I've lived in my single family
resident neighborhood for
almost 40 years and I walk the
neighborhood every morning and
I see the changes that are
occurring and I'm vehemently
against what's happening. I see
these monstrous houses and
beautiful single family homes
that are one stories being torn
down and they are like monster
houses. There seems to be no
moratorium on the heights and
they over power everything they
there's no sunlight. I mean and
it's it's something that just
really needs to be looked at. I
implore you to look at other
cities and the studies that
they've done before venturing
into something like this and
taking a closer look on the
impacts of building this type
of society. The streets look.
thank you that your time? We
had a glitch with zuma
at unmuted somebody I don't
know how it did that but I'm
going to go ahead and go over
to her because she had started
speaking and then we'll come
back to you, sir. Sheila,
go ahead. It >> looks like she
may have went away so I'm going
to go ahead and move.
permission to speak? She can
raise her hand again but I
don't know what happened there.
just wanted to make sure
everything was fair. Go ahead,
sir. Thank you for waiting.
sure. >> hi. I live in an
apartment building. It's right
next to a single family home.
we can see into their yard.
does this make me and my family
neighborhood destroyers? No.
our kids play together. I would
move into an 8 or 10 story
apartment building. Does this
make me a bad person? No. It
makes me someone living in a
world class city that happens
to be caught up in the results
of decades of poor planning
decisions. And here we have an
opportunity for council to
follow staff's recommendations
to maintain a certified housing
element at two six north
winchester, for example, is a
prime location that will
actually deliver housing. But
the neighbors and council
member mulcahy are engaging in
a classic moving of goalposts
by asking for yet another
zoning reduction on exactly the
parcel that is most likely to
produce housing. You are the
decision makers. The time is
now to be bold and meet the
glaring housing need. Do not
cave to demands that amount to
nice to have that amount
tonight. Thank you. Next
speaker andrew. So come on
down, corinne. I already called
corinne. Trish mcdonald's.
janet spoke. Okay. Trish
interested? Okay. Go ahead.
okay. Good evening. I'm corinne
tamayo. I live in district six,
the willow glen neighborhood. I
have been in my willow glen
home for 37 years. Most of the
homes in my neighborhood are 90
years old at this point. I am
vehemently opposed to this plan
to dramatically increase zoning
in our single-family
neighborhood. I fear it will
fundamentally alter the willow
glen historic neighbor hood
character character. It will
tax our neighborhoods aging
infrastructure such as sewage
and plumbing capacity. The
localized electric grid and
water supply. It will result in
severe congestion due to lack
of parking. It will severely
impact and destroy the
neighborhoods. Mature a tree
canopy which is already only
at a dismal 13.5% for the city
of san jose. Residential lots
account for 70% of all san jose
city trees. I urge you to
reject this proposal. Thank
you. Next speaker. >> hi. Thank
you for listening to all of us.
I just want to say that please
reject this proposal. I believe
this is going to destroy our
neighborhoods and once it's
done 30 years from now you
can't go back and take all
these buildings down and just
go back to single family
housing. Please reject this
issue. I think it's a very
important one for the city
of san jose and I believe that
this will just I can't
emphasize enough. I think you
will destroy our neighborhoods
and I don't like to propose
threats but I mean I think our
next voting round I mean we're
going to decide do >> we want
people who want to bring these
small apartments into our
neighborhoods? I'm sorry. I
don't agree with this at all.
please say no. >> thank you.
next speaker I also have
ramachandran bala come on down.
susan noda and veena >>
ramachandran. Go ahead. Hi, I'm
ed russo and I'm sorry for
my voice but I just want to let
you know I have lived in
san jose my whole life. The
community that we have built
this city, the working together
with neighbors and >> partners
that we >> have in this city to
destroy that would be
unconscionable. We >> are a
city that is a community no
matter where you live. And to
destroy that would be so sad.
and once we destroy it, we
can't go back. There's plenty
of places in san jose where we
can build high density housing.
my husband worked >> for the
vta for 35 years. I understand
we need more housing there.
vta. Why are we doing that? Why
are we looking at places like
abandoned commercial buildings?
let's be prudent and save >>
our lives. Thank you. Next
speaker. Good evening. My name
is baller and increasing
density from 8 to 32 units per
acre with three storey
buildings will reverse or to
our neighborhoods. Furthermore,
the density will place an
unsustainable burden on
essential public services. Most
concerning is the proposed
ministerial approval process.
there's three practical
examples that I have seen. A
neighbor of mine runs a hostel
for traveling nurses at one
point in time on a 5000ft² lot.
I found 16 vehicles parked.
another of my neighbors runs a
rental car agency. A third and
a fourth. They actually run a
bar inside their garage. Now if
we adopt this kind of a
proposal, just imagine the
consequences that it'll happen.
people think commercial and
this is what is going to cause
damage to our community. I urge
the city council to vote no.
thank you. Next speaker alison
single loni come on down linda
geisha and ali >> victory. >>
good evening. I'm veena
ramachandran from various huh?
I strongly opposed the zoning
from single family home to
multi >> zoning. Several
residents of various high in
san jose >> have worked hard
all their lives to buy a single
family >> home. Several people
have moved from other crowded
cities nearby to come and live
in san jose because of the
present single family homes and
the large sites. Demolishing
single family homes destroys an
entire neighborhood. Also the
wave of unnecessary
requirements like garages and
entrances puts pressure on
neighbors. And there'll be
fights and disputes. There'll
be an increase in crime. And
most important, what no one is
mentioning is that land sharks
will move in. If I have two
multi-story buildings on either
side of me I'm a very easy prey
and I'll be forced out. And >>
this is not what I bought a
house in san jose for. So
please oppose this. Thank you.
next speaker kris justin. Come
on down. Bart wilner and
benjamin white. Good evening,
alison single lani, director
of policy with s.v. At home and
a longtime d5 resident. We
support the planning
commission's recommendation to
increase residential
neighborhood densities to 32
units per acre. To support the
development of middle income
housing, this can help create
much needed more affordable
homes in san jose. Make street
smart strategic use of our
existing infrastructure and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions
by letting people live closer
to where they work. We
encourage council to take this
necessary step in compliance
with the city's adopted housing
element from the teeth,
tordillos and committee memo we
support increased height limits
for middle housing surrounding
transit areas. From the mayor's
brown act memo we support the
recommendations related to
pickup lands from the candela
ortiz mulcahey memo. We support
a streamlined process and lower
fee structure for special use
permits for communities serving
users on pickup land. We oppose
adding new parking requirements
to development or exempting
parts of the city from middle
income development. You can
live >> in a vibrant city
that's growing or >> thank you
>> that your time next speaker.
>> linda gautier district
district nine for 46 years
esteemed mayor council members
as an elected official I'm
accustomed to dense official
language but please create
executive summaries for these
proposals that are bullet
pointed and in plain english
for the layperson homeowner who
wants to know what 100 words or
less what it means for him or
her? Personally I'd like to say
that I'm tired of the pit
of the popular view that
my neighbors and I are selfish
privileged snobs. My cambrian
home I bought out could only
squeak into my cambrian home in
1980 because it had a 60 cubic
foot hole for a planned
swimming pool in the backyard.
I couldn't afford to have it
filled so for two years I
got free pool dirt dumped in
front of the house and used a
wheelbarrow to get it in the
hole. My salary at that time
was under 12 a year and I
worked multiple jobs for a long
time. I refinanced to send a
son to college and again to
help his family buy a house
of their own. I live on a tight
budget in the house so many
seem to resent me having I made
this investment under a set
of rules that I had every
reason to expect would not.
thank you that your time? Next
speaker. Ali superman come on
down and down. Oh, hello. Ali
victory in district seven and I
discovered I'm in the missing
middle for 45 years my husband
and I raised our family in high
density home. We have a
townhome across the street are
duplexes a half mile away >> or
apartment complexes and right
next door single family homes.
it's a neighborhood that works.
it does have issues. Parking is
one for 45 years we've had
issues with parking. So this
plan I support but I am really
glad to see the memorandums
that are looking to direct the
staff in a reasonable way.
thank you. Thank you. Next
speaker hi my name is chris
justine my wife and I have a
house in willow glen. We all >>
want housing to be more
available and more affordable
but more density, more
affordable housing are not the
same thing. Increasing
neighborhood density is only
one possible tool. Tax policy
incentives >> regulatory
reform, development costs and
other approaches can also
affect housing availability >>
and affordability. Yet we >>
are considering changes that
could increase residential
neighborhood density from eight
to as much as 32 units an acre
allow three storey development
and use ministerial approvals.
your own memoranda show that
the answers aren't settled >>
here. That's why I support
councilmember jones request for
a four week deferral and
dedicated >> public meeting for
weeks as a small price to pay
for better public understanding
of a policy that could
permanently affect san jose's
established neighborhoods.
don't make the policy outrun
the evidence. Give the public
the four weeks to study the
alternatives. Then we can make
an informed decision. >> I bart
wilner district six for 48
years state bill 79 is a
mandate. It's the law. We have
to follow it. What you're all
trying to do now is strictly a
discretionary decision. It has
nothing to do with the law. It
is not a mandate. You only
mandate is to the voters that
put you in office. Right now we
shouldn't be looking
at increasing what the state
of california is asking for. We
should be looking at how we can
fulfill what the state
of california is asking for.
follow the law. Do it for a few
years. Reevaluate see what how
it works out and then may
changes as necessary. We're
putting a horse in front of the
cart. It's ridiculous right
now. Your your emphasis should
be seeing >> how google is
going to build the 5900 units
25% of them affordable housing
that they promised us and it's
now going to be probably in the
mid 2030s before they even
break ground. Come on, let's do
the job. Thank you. That your
time? Thank you. I'm bill
moline. Come on down steve
ling, robert wood and mary
pizzo. Hello. My name is
benjamin white. I live in the
winchester corridor
neighborhood. >> I think that
the fourfold increase in
residential zoning density that
is proposed is extreme for that
neighborhood. I also >> think
that rezoning property ease in
this and any parcel in this
residential neighborhood to
urban residential is also
inappropriate for a residential
neighborhood like this. And I
also want to say that I do
support the memo that
councilmember mulcahy
coauthored. I think that is a
reasonable proposal, a step in
the right direction. Thank you.
>> thank you. Next speaker.
thank you. I'm bill wolf and I
think this is a great proposal.
for any city with a subway
system because with the subway
system people can just ride to
work and they're fine. But if
you don't have a subway system,
people might need cars and they
might need to park their car
both at work and at home. So
please vote against this idea
and as an incentive I'll give
up the rest of my time. Thank
you. Next speaker I ali
superman on behalf of the
housing action coalition and as
a downtown resident I urge you
to accept staff's winchester
boulevard compromise. Please
don't limit the corridor to
townhomes only and don't carve
out parcels 8 to 6 winchester
hersh special treatment because
every site shares the same
characteristics. On missing
middle housing please adopt
at least 40 dwelling units per
acre as task force members have
called for berkeley's program
goes further at 17 if berkeley
can do it, a much larger city
like san jose can too. Density
must be high enough to make
math work. I also support the
councilmembers tordillos and
may's memo. I encourage a
predictable ministerial
approval process with clear
objectives standards and
defined review timelines.
please maintain the city's
commitment to eliminate parking
minimums. We committed to
things in the housing element
and we don't need to
relitigate. We must implement a
program that maintains the
city's housing element
commitments falling short risk,
decertification and loss
of local land control. Thank >>
you. >> thank you. Next
speaker. >> hello, my name is
steve leng. I'm present of the
strawberry park neighborhood
association in district one.
I'm also former former chairman
of the district one leadership
group. Thanks for the
opportunity to speak. I'll be
brief in the if the motivation
for up zoning in the proposed
framework is to meet the state
mandate of 62,200 new housing
units by 2031 for the regional
housing needs allocation. I
believe there are less dramatic
ways to get this done.
specifically I'm referring to
the quadrupling of the single
family density limits from 8 to
32 units per acre across the
entire city. Please vote no on
this proposal. Hold your
planning staff and neighborhood
leaders like me accountable to
go come up with a better plan.
thank you. Thank you. Next
speaker >> after this speaker
I'm going to call five names
online. Just so you know, I
have about six cards left in
person and 20 >> hands online.
go ahead. >> good evening.
my name is mary peet. So I have
lived in san jose almost all
of my life and I would like not
only the council >> but also
the planners >> to look at the
items that were detailed by the
district six leadership group
because we believe in growth,
we understand we live in a city
that needs to grow but we also
believe that some of the path
decisions have proven to be
inaccurate and some of the new
guidelines that you're
proposing are way too generous
for develop buyers and really
don't address the neighbors who
come to these meetings to talk
with other neighbors who really
want you to respect the fact
that we also know our
neighborhood and what's worked
and what hasn't worked. Thank
you. >> alright I'm going to
go to sheila and then followed
by m.l. And tamisha. Jordan
moldau and tate. Okay. My name
is sheila. Okay. I'm an
associate broker with bmg. I
think two things are essential.
I don't agree with the proposal
because it doesn't meet the
needs of the city or the
community but more importantly
any developer who's making a
ton of money by giving you 1 or
2 housing that is subsidized as
opposed to full tilt money is a
violation of our rights as
citizens to give our hard
earned money and interest to
them. So I'm opposed to that.
I'm also opposed to if you're
going to build why don't you
just build underground
permanently just the way you
need to do to make sure
everybody in that building has
a place to go. Now that makes
no impact on the community
of the people you're going to
damage anyway. If you
go through with it. And third,
if you're going to get the
developers to give your money
to m.l. >> followed by an
tamisha I am very concerned
that data centers are not
included as a study topic and
this work plan for your four
year review of the general plan
for 2047 would need to be
studied as part of the general
plan. There are currently 34
approved and pending data
center projects in san jose. A
lot of them are district two
where there is no recycled
water. These data centers
directly steal freshwater
resources away from human
beings and wildlife in the
city. We need water not data to
survive. We already live in a
very drought prone area. The
u.n. Has declared that we are
now in an era of water being
added as of this year. So we
will surely see a drought again
in this area. Water consumption
needs to be human consumption
needs to be prioritized. Noise
pollution energy needs hazards
to human and wildlife health
are also very serious concerns
that I don't have time to speak
on. Data centers need to be
studied as part of this general
plan. Please reject this
proposal. The >> mischa
followed by jordan mayor >> may
hand council members and west
tennessee resident and a member
of I love san jose.org
coalition of over 3000
organized residents. My family
lives less than a mile from the
prologis proposed 99 megawatt
data center today. Residents
spoke against rezoning ibm
almaden for data centers. You
voted 9 to 2 to approve it
anyway. No cumulative impact
analysis, no standard city
staff confirm this is analysis
doesn't currently exist. We
already have equinox operating
nearby stack infrastructure's
100mw pending for a lot for a
allergist's with 396mw plant
yet there's no analysis
of whether our neighborhoods
can serve this combined load
of water consumption and
pollution. Residents near
betty's facility in mansfield,
georgia can no longer drink
their water. We won't let that
happen here. Your vote today
proved we need binding
standards before approvals, not
after I'm asking you to commit
now require conditional use
permit instead of special use
permits for data centers,
mandate cumulative impact
analysis and apply new
standards or draft >> jordan
followed by >> tate. Hi this is
jordan muldowney d through
resident thank you to council
members toward ios and comté
and the city staff for their
memos that demonstrate forward
thinking leadership on land
use. I live in a ten year old
apartment building in
japantown. My neighbors and I
contribute to the neighborhood,
participate in neighborhood
groups, walk or dogs pay taxes.
we're not bogeymen. We live
peacefully with our home owning
neighbors. Our apartment our
apartment was built with
parking minimums. The parking
is never close to full.
families have many different
shapes and sizes and many
different transportation needs.
setting parking minimums are
unlikely to be too low but
they're extremely likely to be
too high. The staff report
studied parking and determined
that developers are still
building it. We shouldn't be
making policy based on failed
pseudoscience. Please reject
parking minimums and the
negatives that they bring. I
also support communities
serving in residential areas
and pickup zones as as talked
about in huge council memos >>
came before a unmute taped I'm
going to call names of people
in the room. Lina or liana
olive lindy hayes, greg
carlson, jeff pedulla and bill
wolfe come on down >> and taped
over to you. >> hello, I'm
kate. I'm a homeowner in d10.
I've lived here for about six
years and I for one would
welcome new neighbors and
strongly support that missing
middle proposal. I think we
need at least three units
probably probably more. As
someone else pointed out to
me to meet our housing goals.
we don't need things like
parking minimums. We can leave
that up to individual sites to
determine and they just add
cost proposals. And please
think of all the young families
who aren't there tonight and
can't express their voices and
really need affordable housing
in san jose. Thank you >> mayor
mehan. Council members >>
my name is liana all of I'm a
resident and a member
of concern corry neighborhood.
I would like to thank the
council members conduct
countless and also ortiz and
especially our district six
councilmember malcolm mccarthy
for listening to our concerns
on the rezoning of the north
winchester corridor and ferris
forest avenue. The designations
of mulan on winchester with
forest to remain ryan and cc
will not only provide for
additional housing but will
also preserved small businesses
that generate greater tax
revenue and put less strain on
multiple services. Any other
zoning will have a negative
impact on the traffic safety,
parking and integrity of the
neighborhood and impact the
ability of these businesses to
survive. I would also urge you
to reject the missing middle
housing and continue to develop
land as designated in the 2040
>> general plan. >> thank you
that your time next speaker
christy. Right. Come on down,
sam kurtzman worksman and
sandra delavan. Go ahead. >>
I'm linda hayes from concern
corrie neighbors. There are two
issues where we disagree with
the planning department staff.
the winchester corridor and
identification of residential
neighborhoods for the
winchester corridor. We embrace
the recommendations of our
councilmember michael mulcahy
to preserve the profitable
small businesses along for us
and to rezone as a mixed use
neighborhood properties along
winchester to permit housing.
council member mulcahy's
solution is better for our
neighborhood and recognizes the
housing needs of the city. I am
thrilled for the densification
issue. We think it is
haphazard. Once it is done it
cannot be undone. If the
council has a compromise to
propose we would very much like
to hear it. Thank you. >> thank
you. Next speaker. My name is
greg carlson and I'm with
concern corey neighbors. And
this is an important moment not
just in the winchester corridor
in san jose but perhaps beyond.
these are your concerns. Once
sometime back you asked us to
give you our votes to allow you
to be sitting here today to
represent our neighborhoods and
to protect the safety and
integrity of our neighborhoods
and small businesses. Now is
the time that we come to you to
confirm that we the voters made
the right decision. We asked
you to protect the safety and
integrity of our neighborhoods.
we asked you to support our
councilmember michael mulcahy's
recommendation to not changing
the forest avenue zoning and no
more than mixed use residential
on the designated parcels along
the winchester corridor.
including 826 north winchester.
how much time do I have to
build a vibrant downtown and
put up two high rises around
downtown? Perfect. Thank you.
>> thank you. Next speaker.
marni, come on down. And ken >>
hillman. I'm jeff temple. I'm
approaching this from a
different angle. I submitted a
legal ethics complaint to two
projects in college park.
applicable laws and procedures
weren't followed. Then this is
the 2012 emery street land
deal. The pedestrian easement
exists as a cloud on the title
and the date of the recorded
deed I saw was december 17th,
2012 but the matter was heard
and passed by the council on
the 18th. Thank you. >> thank
you. Next speaker I >> urge you
to vote no. The problem with
this is the blanket approval to
build high density housing on
any residential lot. It doesn't
make sense. My name is kristi
wright and I moved to san jose
30 years ago because I found a
neighborhood that has
character. It feels safe. It's
quiet at night. It has ample
parking. There are front yards
and backyards for the kids to
play in. High density housing
built right in the middle of a
quiet block changes the fabric
of the street and that
neighborhood. I seriously doubt
that any of you council members
would like a high density unit
built right next to your house.
we need more housing to let's
put it along the transit
corridors like the award
winning envision san jose 2040
plan. There is a lot of space
in san jose. Let's build where
it makes sense. I also object
to the lack of public input on
this rezoning. Thank you that
>> your time next speaker. Nick
cochran come on down. I'm here
>> today speaking as a board
member of families and homes
san jose at 100% volunteer
locally based city grass >> a
city wide grass neighborhood or
group directly representing
san jose residents and voters.
I'm standing up here alone but
others stand with me. I am
presenting a petition titian
signed by 4244 san jose
residents. So I am actually
speaking for those residents
and more. We oppose the missing
middle recommendation from the
planning commission and staff.
the following is my personal
comment. We are here today
because of decisions and votes
made by 22 and 2023 by the city
council and staff then who
worked on the housing element.
you were responsible for the
situation today. Fix your
error. Do not tell us you
can't. You got us here. Please
get us out of here. Thank you.
thank you. That your time? Next
speaker. >> I strongly support
the memorandum from
councilmember baltimore katie
ortiz and has the >> compromise
to replace all of the proposed
user zoning with m1 along with
the preservation of our and
along the forest avenue is what
makes sense for the winchester
corridor. I have attended
almost all of the general plan
for review meetings and
appreciate that the task force
members did not support the
staff's recommendation for u r
and held multiple votes and
also countered with proposals
of m1 zoning in place of u r.
corey residents understand that
more housing is needed but u r
zoning would not create housing
that would actually benefit the
potential new residents and
would severely negatively
impact the current ones. The
already terrible traffic would
be awful and further the lack
of any parking mandate would be
devastating to an area already
impacted by overflow parking
from valley fair that has been
exacerbated since the increase
the parking fees there area is
not at all appropriate for u r
zoning m u n zoning along the
winchester boulevard and
preserving r and along forest
avenue is a reasonable
compromise. Thank you. Thank
you. Next >> speaker kooser jr
woods come on down daisy mendez
and julie finn harris. >>
go ahead. We were here in june
2025 talking about 17 and 15
story project zoning change
at 826 north winchester with
overwhelming opposition from
the community the council
thankfully denied. Now we are
back again talking about
rezoning multiple lots on the
winchester corridor. I'm
shocked that winchester
boulevard is being targeted
again given many members of the
planning task force question
why I would request that the
issues of the densification
of residential neighborhoods
and the winchester corridor
rezoning be considered
separately. This would be
similar to the action at the
planning commission task force
where the commissioners pulled
out these two issues for
discussion and had divided vote
on the winchester corridor.
unfortunately the planning
director didn't spend any time
explaining to the council the
winchester corridor rezoning
don't break the promise to this
and as a neighborhoods don't
go forward with the planning
department's proposal, don't
let. >> thank you that your
time next speaker. Good
evening. I live in 83 san jose.
it's made up of distinct
neighborhoods and this proposal
can irreparably change and
possibly destroy them. It will
certainly negatively impact
livability. A large influx
of new residents will make the
city even less habitable
without more certainty, without
more services and resources
which you can't provide. Under
this proposal neighbors will
lose their ability to have
input on future projects with
only ministerial review and no
subjective design requirements.
historic call and preservation
conservation districts which
should be protected can be
changed beyond recognition. I
understand that the state is
mandating many changes which
san jose needs to comply with
why the city is proposing to
make even more draconian
changes is frankly beyond
my comprehension. You are
making the current residents
of the city plant part of a
zoning experiment that will
have unintended consequences.
I'm just >> going. >> thank
you. Next speaker roberta moore
come on down rush patel and
john leave it. Good evening.
during the 45 years I've lived
in san jose there have been
city council decisions which I
have not agreed but have always
been able to understand and if
not appreciate opposing points
of view at least until now. The
planning commission's recent 9
to 2 decision to effectively
nullify the envisioned san jose
2040 plan I recommending
dramatic up zoning uniformly
across all residential
neighborhoods is misguided and
in my view a complete
abdication of the dissenting
commissioners overall duty and
responsibility to the citizens
of san jose. Quite frankly I am
done dumbfounded at finding
myself in the position
of having to vehemently voice
subjection to this vacuous
policy recommendation. I don't
recall carmen since being given
a leave of absence. I trust
that common sense will thank >>
you that your time next
speaker. Carol last name I
think heffley. Come on down,
chandler three hand and sam.
go ahead. >> while the city has
the authority to rezone and
pass ordinances a single family
lot with existing deed
restrictions cannot be made
null and void by these actions.
the enforcement of deed
restrictions is a civil court
>> matter between private
properties parties. Excuse
me >>. Our neighborhoods will
actively defend to our
restrictions of one residential
unit per lot in court against
any and all development on our
deed restricted single family
>> lots. Obviously I oppose >>
this. I'd like to thank the
building and these guys for
showing chuckie cheese and the
first slide. That is six more
stories >> to go. >> thank you
that your time. Next speaker.
>> hi there. I'm judy finn
harris. I live in cary and I'm
a renter and I've been laid off
and >> I am really still hoping
to make san jose my home to put
down roots here, maybe invite
>> my son and his girlfriend as
they hope to build. Well, we're
not saying what they're hoping
to build yet >> but one thing
that really it's so special
about san jose is the diverse
>> and distinct neighborhoods.
each one has their own
characteristics and that's the
result of years of careful
planning, thoughtful
consideration done hand-in-hand
with our community >> members.
so I urge the council to please
make sure that there's enough
time to do this to make the
thoughtful decisions that won't
negatively impact our
neighborhoods by rushing
something >> and to preserve
that character. And yes, I
support our district. Markey's
proposal. Thank you. >> can you
hear me? Yes. About two weeks
>> ago I came to the planning
group and I asked her hearing
about data centers and that's
coming up. I very strongly
recommend you put data centers
high on the list of things to
add to your generic general
plan. You wisely called for a
meeting tomorrow night. You'll
hear more about it. Then on
residential that issue also
covers water power and open
space. And I ask you to
recommend that you spend some
time looking at the ibm
property because you're going
to need open space for more
people living here. You don't
want the power being taken from
the people to raise the price
of power to the people that
live in our houses here. You
should use the power you
got from manufacturing and keep
the prices down as low as you
can. And number three like some
company like ours like green
cloud it's not good to use
water in a data center. I
really respect what you're
doing. You've got to bury thank
god and keep it up. Thank you.
next speaker roberto moore
housing commission speaking
personally. Miss information is
driving >> this proposal since
2000 >> 15 h c d decertified >>
seven city e's and fined two
one and they were all for very
serious violations >> despite
verbal conversations not one
involved council rejecting >> a
density proposal not one. This
proposal >> will undermined >>
our city's preservation goals.
barriers to affordable housing
are >> financing and costs, not
density and land. How did staff
get this so >> wrong? Garbage
in, garbage out require >>
staff to separate legal
mandates from discretionary
choices measure the impact and
>> thank you that your time. A
meal jack and ah. Come on down.
kelly macdonagh >> and gerry
giles. >> good evening. My name
is sam district nine and me a
vice mayor and the city
council. Thank you for your
leadership. I know you care
about this city and make the
best decisions. We ask you to
keep >> the promise. The
promise is what make america >>
america. We love countries that
have law of the jungle. They
make laws along the way and
they mess up quantities of life
of people and people live. I
left there for 50 years. I
never come back to that
communist country today let us
honor >> that. When people
choose a single housing they
choose single housing. When
they choose a community where
their the kids go to the
certain schools they want to
go to those schools. Let's not
mess up that community. Let's
not put density where it
belongs to a place where there
are works. So please honor >>
that promise. Help them to keep
their promise and we ask you to
keep the promise that keep
single housing single housing.
>> next speaker I'm jonathan
and I have lived >> in san jose
for almost 43 years and I like
the neighborhood I live in. In
fact most of my neighbors have
lived around us are almost 2530
plus. >> so this proposal was
permanently destroyed. That
community feeling we have if
you make this decision is not
something you can reverse once
it happens it's going to affect
central day forever. Another
question I have is what problem
are resolving california
population is going down.
people are moving out. In fact
the net loss of population in
california is wonderful and
this kind of decision by the
state is pushing more people
out. They are moving to the
state where this kind of junk
is not thrown at them. And
second thing is even in
san jose for the last ten years
are more we are losing point 3%
>> every thank you that your
time next speaker david noel
come on down and tom wilson. >>
good evening mayor and council
members my name is maharshi
patel and I'm a resident
of district eight. I'm speaking
tonight in support
of increasing density to 32
dwelling units per acre in our
one zone areas. My generation
went to school here, worked
hard. Ghada got her degrees and
became working professionals.
yeah we're completely priced
out of the very neighborhood
that we grew up in. We're in a
tough spot that we don't
qualify for affordable housing
and we can't afford the
standard market rate housing as
well because previous
generations bought their home,
bought one, their home prices
were 3 to 4 times lower and
interest rates were
increasingly lower. Longtime
residents are understandably
staying put but without new
housing options there is simply
no room for young families and
working professionals like us
to move in. This isn't just
about housing. It's about the
future of our community. When
young families can't afford to
live here, our public schools
lose enrollment and that they
desperately need to stay open.
in the past year we've seen
multiple schools close this.
thank you. That's your time.
sandra mckinnon come on down
and robert mckinnon >> hi my my
name is jack adler. I am an
immigrant from india. I grew up
in india in a city I came to
chicago, lived in a city lived
in york, lived in philadelphia
before moving here, lived it
until we have a child who had a
child. We moved to glen because
we wanted a room. We wanted
backyard I my job was in
san francisco, still chose to
live here and commute. What
this proposal is doing is
removing choice from people and
that is un-american. Inherently
people who like cities can live
here. There is there is an
apartment building across from
city hall that has 15 open
apartments. Nobody's renting
them there, is there is if you
want to live in middle there is
there are areas like that we
the the planning of the
planning commission should >>
that's your time next speaker.
>> hi I'm kelly mcdonough. I'm
speaking today as a member
of sharon corey neighbors to
urge you to reject the high
density mixed use rezoning for
north winchester boulevard. The
foundational principle
of transit oriented development
is pairing high density housing
with high capacity frequent
transit. This proposal aligns
with those standards. Direct
service on this stretch relies
on a single bus route vta 60
with busses running 20 20
minutes apart because line 16
navigates major freeway
chokepoints and airport
terminals. It suffers from
routine delays. There's no
light rail, no heavy rail, no
dedicated transit lane along
this segment. Assuming future
residents won't drive here is
unrealistic. Without true rapid
transit infrastructure, high
density rezoning will create
car dependent development
spilling traffic into parking
overflow directly into our
neighborhood. I support michael
mckay's proposal to leave the
forest businesses alone and to
limit the winchester sites to
mixed use neighborhood zoning.
thank you. Thank you. Next
speaker. >> it is proposed up
zoning helps the city. Helps
corporations helps developers
and helps billionaires. But
this predatory proposal is
at the expense of all working
class neighborhoods. Yes, up
zoning raises desperate
desperately needed property tax
revenue for the city and county
and it helps the tech pros by
building housing for their
employees. But this is at the
expense of we the people of the
majority who you are supposed
to be representing. Working
class residents bought modest
single family homes in san jose
to escape the pack like sardine
density of apartment living.
now you want to bring apartment
living density to their
neighborhoods based on 1100
pages of letters written to the
city regarding zoning. The
public is overwhelmingly
opposed. This is your worst
solution to the housing crisis
yet so I urge you to vote
against it. Thank you. >> thank
you. Next speaker elva wilson
enrique navarro and gene hunt.
come on down. Go ahead. >> good
evening. Honorable mayor and
city council. I'm dave noel,
district nine resident
neighborhood leader and present
of erickson neighborhood
association. I urge you to
adopt the following strategy
for missing rental housing. >>
first conform residential
neighborhood densities with
current state laws. Second add
a minimum parking requirement
for residential neighborhoods
of one off street parking space
per unit as allowed by sb nine.
and third advocate at the state
>> level to resolve the
construction defect liability
laws that currently prevent
building condos which can
provide the missing little
housing we need at scale. Here
are some benefits matching
state requirements will allow
sharing best practices with
neighboring cities, reducing
staff time and preserving
capacity to address future
state laws. Changes locating
missing middle housing and
transit corridors will improve
vmt, tree canopy and service
delivery while creating
walkable neighborhoods.
finally, conforming to state
law will prevent local
government mistrust when
residents become aware of it.
thank >> you that your time
next speaker. This housing
crisis is nothing compared to
the number of new crises you
will create if you
indiscriminately start packing
and stacking people in
neighborhoods currently zoned
for single family homes. Do not
pack and stack people without
full realization that each
dwelling and each individual
require water resources which
we're already trying to
conserve energy, power impact
garbage and sewer systems. Each
person deserves to count on
san jose's first responders
police, fire, ambulance
hospitals all of which are
already overtaxed and
functioning below optimal staff
levels. Traffic is impacted
significantly and there's a
much longer list. It is
negligent to pack and stack
people in san jose's single
family home neighborhoods. You
will only be creating a variety
of new crises. >> thank you.
next speaker down with the
update on the city's plan to up
zoned high density housing and
single family neighborhoods >>
is just bad. Do not kill the
american dream. Working class
families that worked hard all
their lives to achieve the
american dream of owning a
single family home should not
have that stripped away. This
entire proposal only benefits
>> rich developers, rich
companies and politicians who
want to get rich from campaign
contributions and kickbacks. We
need our city us to fight for
us and not special interest
groups. Protect our rights to a
decent standard of living and
their pursuit of happiness.
san jose is already facing an
infrastructure crisis with the
need for electrical power,
water, road repair and parking.
adding more people to a
neighborhood that was never
designed or intended to
accommodate that amount
of people is just plain crazy.
>> thank you. Next speaker greg
peralta. Come on down. Doris
lives and seek. Good evening.
>> my name is robert wilson. 36
year resident of deep. I've
pretty >> aggressively and
dramatically increasing
unmandated levels of density
will have greater negative
impacts >> in lower income east
san jose. We >> know it will be
a fresh tool for predatory
landlords to exploit vulnerable
tenants by cramming even more
renters into tiny cramped
spaces to house people like
cattle. Accepting this proposal
is bad for all of san jose but
it is systemic oppression for
lower income neighborhoods.
please >> consider the negative
unintended consequences. Thank
you. >> your next speaker. Good
evening mayor and council. I'm
cannavaro with the santa clara
county association of realtors.
to build housing and plan for
growth in a responsible way, we
shouldn't ignore transportation
and parking consequences that
come with increased density in
low density neighborhoods. When
more homes are added to an
existing neighborhood, there
will be more vehicles, more
trips, more vehicle miles
traveled and a greater
competition for limited parking
space. Those impacts need to be
evaluated before density
increases are approved or not
after residents are already
dealing with the consequences.
that's one reason why we
support concentrating growth in
planned growth areas in mixed
use corridors where
transportation and
infrastructure planning can
better keep pace of development
and >> housing affordability
and supply is key and we do not
need to sacrifice parking and
increased street congestion to
accomplish either. We need to
think about how people
primarily get around where they
park and whether the
surrounding infrastructure can
accommodate the additional
demand. So please support the
man foley campos cohen and
casey memo and the candela
ortiz mulcahy memo which
address these concerns and
which have a deep >> thank you
that your time lynn respects
key. Come on down marin sader
quest and jessica home. Good
evening council and mayor. I am
a 55 year resident in a single
family neighborhood. I'm from
district one. I'm present
of the murdoch neighborhood
association and I represent
their opinions on this matter.
I'm here to say I don't object
to growth. We do need it but it
needs to be carefully
considered. Ample parking
definitely needs to be
considered as well as keeping
trees. I'm a tree advocate. The
state legislation already has
sb nine, sb 310 and sb 79 to
produce enough housing. Please
leave the neighborhoods alone
and focus on the numerous areas
near existing transit as >>
people who buy there won't need
cars. Sb 330 says downsizing a
property after it has been up
zoned is legally restricted. In
other words, please be >> thank
you that your time? Steven
meyer come on down and michael
gordon. >> good evening.
my name is greg. I'm with the
santa clara county association
of realtors. I'm here asking
you to support the megan foley
campus coin in casey memo. This
memo strikes the right balance
by meeting state housing
mandates and avoids builder
remedy. It adds parking
triggers environmental reviews
above certain density
thresholds and allows light
commercial uses for walkable
neighborhoods. Thank you. >>
thank you. Next speaker rebecca
selden. Stephanie >> legs aa
and david hind all come on down
. >> good evening mayor and
council members. My name is
jessica home and I'm here to
support planning staff's
recommendations for a workable
missing middle housing
framework and the urban
residential designation along
winchester especially for the
a26 north winchester boulevard
>> project. As a millennial,
many of my friends >> in
san jose's still live with
their parents and >> I know a
lot of these people have talked
about how hard they work but I
think we work hard too and
things are different now. We
can't buy homes the way that we
used to and now they're having
children of their own and
they're stuck in the same homes
they grew up with. That's six
people one bathroom, three
bedrooms like that is just not
a hypothetical housing crisis.
it's happening right now and it
is untenable. And just because
some people don't get to
eat all the cake they want
doesn't mean that the rest
of us shouldn't be able to
eat at all. Please support
staff's recommendations and
give san jose the opportunity
to build a homes that residents
not just now but in the future
desperately need. Thank you.
thank you speaker. >> hello,
I'm lynn pesci from district
six and I'm here to urge the
council to reject the proposal
for up zoning citywide. Read
our current guidelines and
state laws already include
opportunities to build for the
missing middle but on a smaller
scale. And as we implement
these missing little guidelines
we need to evaluate their
impact on parking traffic, tree
canopy and the use of services
before we jump into more
dramatic changes. Even if the
proposed guidelines are put
into place, they're going to be
difficult to reverse and I
really feel strongly that
residents need to have the
opportunity to give input
regarding the developments that
will have significant effects
on their neighborhoods in the
future. Thank >> you. Thank
you. Your next speaker. Good
evening >> mayor and council
members. I'm marin sater,
present of willow glen
neighborhood association. We
are not against housing. We
support making san jose more
affordable for future residents
while respecting those who
already >> call san jose home.
because this proposal >> is
discretionary. We should have
data showing that this
additional density will improve
affordability and residents
should have a meaningful voice
in decisions affecting their
communities. California has
already enacted significant new
housing laws. Why not wait and
see their impact before going
further? We also need to
understand the impacts >> on
infrastructure parking,
livability >> and tree canopy
goals. I asked the council to
remove the proposed 8 to 32
dwelling units per acre
increase >> for residential
neighborhoods. Then please take
a thoughtful look >> before
making meaningful making
widespread changes that may
conflict with the city's own
transportation, public safety
and environmental >> goals.
thank you. Thank you. Next >>
speaker. Hello mayor and
council. I'm michael gordon,
the present of the santa clara
county association of realtors
and a district ten resident. I
think the public's concerns are
clear and I appreciate that the
balanced approach. The memo
from mayor mehan, vice mayor
foley and the council members
campos, cohen and casey as it
strikes the right balance. It
meets the state housing
mandates, avoids builders
remedy addresses parking
triggers, environmental review
above certain density
thresholds and allows light
commercial uses for walkable
neighborhoods. Please support
the memo and the candidates
ortiz and mulcahy memo. I think
the public is demanding real
transparency. They deserve more
outreach, accessible online
participation and stakeholder
engagement well ahead of major
decisions like this one. Show
the residents exactly what's
affected on the map. Publish an
interactive address searchable
map that shows exactly what. >>
thank you. That's your time.
alan. Go ahead, david. But
alan. Jamie >> waite, joanie
murphy, betsy tanner, pamela m.
come on down. >> mr. Mayor,
council members. I'm exhausted.
I'm sure you are too. I thought
I'd give you a quick summary
of the letter I sent you. I
thought I was going to have
30s. I urge you to approve
them. The mason etc. Memo and
certainly the ken dallas memo
which I'd rather fortuitous as
his name was first. I'd ask you
though to do one thing and
eight dwelling units per acre
to the environmental review. We
don't know if we don't consider
>> the current conditions while
we talk about up zoning we're
missing the boat. It's >> hard
to respond to mr. Burton's
telephone calls since many
of the things that we have
heard are different. I also
urge you to defer this citywide
rezoning matter. All you had to
do is hear the hundreds
of people today. It's not
necessary under sb 79 as we see
the situation and also direct
staff to study all fire risk
areas. And I got another one
but I don't have time. Thank
you very much. Thank you. Next
speaker. Good afternoon. I am
part of councilmember casey's
district and I appreciate that
I have a chance to tell >> you
that I am definitely opposed to
the missing middle >> project.
I think that that would destroy
the single family dwelling. Our
biggest asset my biggest asset
is my home. You're asking to
destroy a neighborhood in our
homes? Councilmember casey, I
>> actually have to say I
haven't seen your memo with the
others so I can't really
comment on it. But when you
were and you said you were
going to put a lot
of development downtown
san jose. I'm not sure if that
memo addressed that so I would
hope that you would put that in
you also downtown have the 20
2040 plan already in place. So
aren't we going to run with
that? >> thank you. Thank you.
next speaker I'm joyce. Last
name starts with an e. Go go
ahead and go up to the
microphone. It looks like
kevin golden winchester
corridor >> arts morris and
kelly irani. Come on down. >> I
urge you to push back to the
state and please represent our
interests. There is a lot
of properties here that aren't
even full. They might be a 20%
capacity and adjacent >> right
next to 280 and winchester.
there's a really big building
and I wonder if it's only 20%
filled and 80% vacant. Why
don't you take all the
buildings that exist and make
sure they're at full capacity
and make sure that at least 50%
of the units are lower? Lower
priced housing and concentrate
things near near where
transportation is. Every
apartment needs to have two
cars. I mean in my 30 year old
daughter is not going to get in
one of your bike lanes down
stevens creek. Thank you. That
your time? Harry neal come on
down, antonio. Deborah newcomb
. Thank you >> mayor and
council members for listening
to all of us. I know it's not
easy with all of us here
tonight but on behalf of the
vpi community association 82, I
urge you to reject this
recommendation and send it back
to the planning department.
council is being asked to make
significant land use changes
based in part on warnings about
decertification builders remedy
and state enforcement. Those
are serious consequences for
sure, but the connection to the
specific proposals need to be
demonstrated and not simply
asserted require staff to
clearly separate what state law
actually mandates from what
represents discretionary policy
choices and if rejecting these
density changes truly puts
san jose at risk
of decertification. Require
staff to provide the specific
legal basis and relevant
precedent along with a complete
analysis of the impacts on
infrastructure displacement,
affordable >> housing and
existing neighborhoods along
with meaningful >>
alternatives. Thank you. >>
next speaker also amy tran, tom
tran, jack lin and ruth
callahan. Come on down. >> hey
mayor. Councilmember michael.
first off, I'm our memories
from the neighborhood and I
foley support michael mulcahy's
recommendations. Why? Well,
come on. He's a genius, right?
we all know that. So san jose.
we're missing the middle,
right? We have single family.
we have tall buildings. The
worse the middle and winchester
corridor has an opportunity to
work with that. And we have
several buildings where if you
make it a mixed use
neighborhood we can build this
middle right and have plenty
of housing which is a win for
san jose. It's a win for the
cary neighborhood and it's a
win for california. So please
stick with his recommendation.
thank you. >> thank you. Next
speaker. Good evening. My name
is kelly aurora. I'm the
director of entitlements for
vici, which is a minority owned
company that is under
construction on two sites on
paige avenue in san jose and
has a couple more in the
building permit process. We'd
like to >> do more. We received
early denial over a year ago
at 826 north winchester. When
councilmember mccain the
balance of the council asked to
study more reasonable
densities, our staff spent a
year doing that with extensive
public outreach and concluded
that winchester corridor is
near transit high grossing
retail and their jobs are staff
studies and made a careful
logical recommendation that we
support. Still if >> you don't
do it here where are you going
to do it? Where are you going
to put the working people where
they can live, work, play and
stay? I think this is it. I
don't think they're evil that
they want to live in apartments
>> and it's that's your time.
thank you. Vests hermanas matt
, I can't read the last name.
it starts with an s and bob
valderrama. Come on >> down.
go >> ahead. Good evening,
mayor. Council members thank
you, staff for your time and
listening to us today. My name
is tom chen. I'm the present
of california small builders
association representing
homebuilders and contract
contractors all across
california. We support the
planning commission's
recommendation for a missing
middle housing. Please maintain
the allowable density of 32
units an acre citywide to allow
housing without adding new
parking requirements. This
could help us be our housing
needs by creating new starter
homes for first time
homebuyers. As you may know,
san jose has been ranked the
most expensive city to live so
san jose is actually making
great progress on creating new
pathways for homeownership with
the recent 80s sell as you may
have heard that sold to a
contractor. So that's our
working class community that
needs a house right here. They
love to work here. Why can't
they live here? This is finally
the time to create houses for
that. At the same time we need
a way to be scalable model and
then we need transparency is
important for homeowners we
respect the homeowners can as
san jose publish an interactive
map. >> thank you. That's your
time. Next speaker alex shaw.
come on down. Chris sava and
aurelia sanchez. >> evening,
mayor mahan and council
members. I'm solomon. I'm
actually a blossom valley
resident and working father. I
want to raise my family here
and buy a single family home
that I can call home. But for
families like mine that's
increasingly become a bit
harder to afford. That's why I
support missing mental housing
things like townhomes,
duplexes, starter homes. And
while I understand that the
change it's going to be
difficult for a lot of the
existing neighbors. I also
believe that we can work
together to add housing while
respecting the character of the
communities we want san jose to
be a place where anyone could
put down roots. And I hope that
we can find a path that works
for existing residents and all
families trying to find a home.
thank you. Thank you. Next
speaker. >> good evening mayor
and council members. My name is
beth humana's. I grew up in
santa clara county. My family
and friends are still here and
I recently moved back from
central valley. I originally
moved away because owning a
home in san jose was out
of reach. The commute was
difficult but that time moving
away felt like my only
realistic option. That's why I
support the general plan update
and we're missing middle
housing. Please give working
people and first time buyers a
path to homeownership. I hope
san jose becomes a place where
people who grew up and work
here can afford a home without
moving or having to live with
their family or sharing an
apartment. Thank you. >> thank
you. Next >> speaker I have
gary steve and louise luis
kiana >> garcia. After these
three names I'm going to call
the online speakers so I just
want the people who are on zoom
to sort of wake up. Go ahead.
>> hi, my name is bob
valderrama. Thank you honorable
mayor and council for having a
public hearing on this. I love
san jose. I grew up in district
gate and been a homeowner in
district nine for over 40
years. Single family
neighborhoods are not just part
of the charm, the culture and
the character of san jose. I
would argue that these
neighborhoods are san jose.
okay. I urge you to oppose that
this high density proposal and
just to remind you that most
of the people that voiced their
opinion today did not move to
austin or nashville or florida.
they stayed here their
faithful, their taxpayers
property owners and just want
to be one want to leave
san jose san jose. Vote no
thank you. >> thank you. Next
speaker. Good afternoon.
my name is chris auerbach and
there's a good public policy.
there's bad public policy and
then there's public policy gone
wild. This is public policy
gone wild. This should have
never been brought to the
people. The thing about filling
a middle is right now there's
something in the middle.
there's no hole. There's
something there. If there was a
hole, what you're talking about
today probably makes >> some
sense. But when there is no
hole in the middle. And then
the other expression that uses
up zoning these are cutesy
terms. But what we're really
doing is saying density and
what's density? That's where
you build probably up right?
and you have to have services
and stuff. But the real issue
here with housing and stuff
like that is the price
of housing. >> that's your
time. The next speaker we're
losing the >> housing battle in
san jose. We are way behind >>
the scenes of this housing
crisis were sown over 50 years
ago when san jose became a city
of mostly single family homes
reliant on driving. We >> went
too far in one direction. Now
we need a rebalancing >> so
everyone can afford to live
here. The only moral way we do
this is denser neighborhoods.
the only >> fair way to do it
is along racial and class lines
is multistory housing
throughout san jose. And the
best way to do that emphasize
walking, biking and public
transit without parking
mandates. I love neighborhood
commercial at the >> end
of blocks in the command to
videos memo. That's a wonderful
idea and I hope it's something
we can pursue. Thank you for
staff for your work on this
issue. Thanks council for your
consideration. Thank you. Next
speaker. >> by the wages where
is that high speed rail? You
know the it's got to be said.
the state legislature in
sacramento is out of control.
it's got to be said it's out
of control. So why have a
planning department? If we're
taking zoning orders from
sacramento. So this proposal >>
is crazy. Don't accept it.
don't approve it. Throw it out.
throw it out with the garbage,
not the recycling stuff. So it
comes back next year or the
year after. You all need >> to
go on garbage night and drive
through your neighborhoods and
other neighborhoods and see the
trouble people have even
fitting their garbage cans on
the street. A lot of people
can't even park in front
of their own houses especially
in a lot of the older areas.
think about that. That's right.
now that's not with 32 units on
this side, 32 units on that
side which is thank >> you that
your time. Next speaker after
this in-person speaker I'm
going to call amy online
followed by rene george, pam
and cathy. So amy, rene george,
pam and cathy, get ready.
go ahead. >> hi, my name is
lucien garcia and I grew up
here in san jose in the east
side. And as someone who
commutes three hours every day
to san francisco and still
decide to live here, it's
really disheartening to hear
how many homeowners who I would
one day would love to be don't
want more housing >> to be
built. I am commuting three
hours a day to save up for what
if there is no housing I will
not be able to live here. Once
I am able to afford a home. And
as someone who grew up here
it's very disheartening if
there is >> no more housing
built but responsibly along
rapid transit which is what I
do use a 66 bus and then the
bart for an hour and 20 minutes
one way. So please be
responsible about how housing
>> is built but it needs to be
built or else people that love
san jose will not get >> to
live here. Thank you amy. >>
good evening mayor and council
members. My name is amy cody
and I'm a resident of the
moreland west neighborhood in
district one. I support smart
responsible growth across our
city from our downtown to our
neighborhoods. That said, I'm
very concerned about the
proposed general plan update
and its unintended irreversible
consequences on our residential
neighborhoods. West san jose
and other areas lack the robust
transit infrastructure to
support zero parking
developments and our working
families and seniors depend on
their vehicles. A lack
of street space already forces
my neighbors in duplexes
triplexes and other small
multifamily properties to park
in their yards across sidewalks
or far away and to place
garbage and recycling bins in
bike lanes creating safety
hazards. Please support the
mayor's memo. At the least we
need onsite parking
requirements where possible and
to ensure that total unit
counts include ada use. And
finally I agree with previous
speakers that these major land
use changes require more public
outreach. >> renee. >> the
missing middle proposal gives
the middle finger to single
family homeowners. Save our
residential single family homes
and residential neighborhoods
and vote no on this proposal.
this plan threatens single
family homes because developers
will buy and outbid potential
homebuyers only to convert them
to single family only to
convert them to the most
allowable number of units on
that parcel. The planning
commission should be working
for city residents and not
developers. If councilmembers
have received political
donations from developers they
should let it be known before
voting today. If councilmembers
actually support this I'll take
you on the ride along and show
you what the future holds. I'll
show you traffic cones, trash
cans and furniture that people
use daily to save their parking
spots. It occurs in san jose.
and this is going to start
occurring everywhere else. If
you vote yes, george followed
by pam george. If you're on
your phone it's star six to
unmute. Okay moving on to pam
followed by kathy. >> hello.
can you hear me now? Yes. Yes.
I am urging you to vote no
along with almost all of the
comments here today as well as
the 12 packets of comments
online. What is being proposed
will fundamentally change the
neighborhoods of san jose and
there is only enriched
developers while just
increasing the overall quality
of life. I support responsible
housing development in san jose
but san jose established
neighborhoods are an important
part of that and I have lived
here for over 40 years and as a
d9 resident who purchased a
home in a single family
neighborhood years ago to raise
my children, I did so with the
expectation about the
surrounding land use framework.
I'm particularly concerned
about policies that would allow
greater density on individual
lots throughout single family
neighbors without adequately
considering the cumulative
impact on neighborhood
character traffic parking
infrastructure, privacy trees
and especially the scale
of possible buildings in
relation to existing homes.
there's a big difference
between allowing new forms
of homes and changing the
fundamental zoning
expectations. Kathy >> followed
by robert reese. Kathy at star
six on mute if you're on your
phone. I oppose this proposal.
it would affect one want
privacy would be impacted crime
will increase the area will be
noise zero that wants peace
of mind and it will deteriorate
the neighborhood. I agree that
san jose needs more housing but
please consider using empty
tech or commercial buildings
like whatsapp and cisco's doing
for apartments. Okay robert
followed by michael wing.
hello, my name is >> robert
reese. I live in evergreen. I
support the memo by council
members candela smoke and or
keys. I'd like to remind the
council that when you embarked
on the update to the general
plan a year and a half ago you
explicitly along with staff
said that the limitations would
include excluding the high vmt
areas. So it's sort of odd now
a year and a half later to find
out that there's a problem with
excluding the vmt areas
evergreen hazardous portion
amount of pd zone lands and
area plants like the evergreen
village square. So essentially
what we're talking about doing
is re subdividing existing
pods. My particular
circumstances I live in a
neighborhood with high fire
risk skinny streets no
sidewalks, limited ingress and
egress. I'm already on a small
lot. I also find it strange
that the oecd would be saying
that the 16 unit breakers is
inadequate when they're
allowing the west side cities
to not. >> thank you michael
wang followed by pierluigi.
hello >> my name's michael
wang. News flash. Our
neighborhoods are already being
destroyed and now by housing
prices are rising prices are
also the product of years
of careful planning. The phrase
the purpose of a system is what
it does comes to mind. As a
recent college graduate I still
live with my parents. Our
schools are closing now.
housing costs are through the
roof. This is sound like a
system we want to keep or when
we want to change. To everyone
saying this >> won't activate
builders already the amount
of units built by the city are
assessed in way through the
housing >> cycle. This will
help make up enough buffer to
make sure >> that we don't
activate it. Thank you. >>
thank you pierluigi. Followed
by blair. Npr recently reported
no city >> is making the
housing numbers in the state
of california albeit >> for a
few small rural areas. Next
year california will have a new
governor not running for
present. And a new cd cd.
director h.c. The numbers are
ridiculous and unattainable.
the state auditor's report
of cd showed a lack of review
matrices and sloppy data
processes regarding suggestive
versus mandatory language in
their findings. A discretionary
decision tonight regarding
single family neighborhoods
would lose the trust of san
jose residents. Please drop
this and stay with the current
general plan that already
accommodates hundreds
of thousands increase in
population and allows the
countless new state laws to
take their course which are
excessive and whose impact will
be massive. Thank you to all
the sounds of residents who
came to their first city
council meeting tonight.
speaking without lobbyists
public hearings or a best
practice in the usa. Don't
experiment. Instead put it on
the ballot. >> thank you,
blair. Followed by marie glee.
hi, I'm blair beekman. Living
in san diego, the past four
years they've done some really
great work with >> past pap is
finding homes for low income
people. It's been a real
success story that I know path
works in san jose that I hope
we can be talking about how to
be housing low income people.
I've been talking for years
about mixed income ideas that
don't necessarily have to work
with >> you know, multifamily
housing and missing middle
things. It can work for single
family homes as well in
neighborhoods >> sharing
community wealth and income in
neighborhoods I think is an
important goal that we have to
be better learning. And that
was mentioned by one of the
first public speakers today.
thank you for that. Good luck
in addressing such issues. And
good luck in working on tech
accountability for our future
neighborhood public safety as
well. Thank you. >> thank you,
maria. Glee followed by roland.
>> hi, my name is mira and I
just recently bought a home in
district three and prior to
this had been renting and
willow glen. This was my first
home purchase and >> it cost
me an arm and a leg but was
worth it because I love this
city and when I actually save
up enough I may even be able to
start a family here. Please do
not >> sacrifice city
affordability and the future
of the youth for parking. I do
not want it to be this hard >>
to afford living in san jose. I
worry about the affordability
of the city for current and
future generations. The best
way to reduce the costs of rent
and living is building more
housing stock and I would
support this even if it would
mean developing a high rise
right next to me. I want
my family to live in a vibrant
community of residents both old
and new that can afford to live
in san jose. Please vote yes.
thank you. Thank you, roland
followed by dana murphy. >> and
good evening. My name is roland
o'brien. My family and I have
lived near the santa teresa
library station for over 40
years. Please support the view
request to rezone these 32
acres back to the original
mixed use housing zoning which
has moved to the other side
of the for you of highway 87 to
increase the value of blue
wolves. I stop also by $100
million to finance those great
stadia near the airport. Next I
am strongly opposed to the
demolition of two schools and
one church. The other view
light rail to make room for
affordable housing. The soon to
be 79. And finally last but not
least I hope you value us all
for 80,000. I repeat 80,000
homes 30 years ago. Please
consider rezoning sections
of coyote valley for mixed use
open space. Thank you >> dana
followed by dan cortez. >> hi,
my name is dana. I live in
district three and recently
bought my first home in bonita
park. I want to live in a city
that is vibrant and affordable
and that comes from plans like
approving to increase density.
please build next to me. Please
build around me please build up
around the city it cost me >>
about everything to afford a
home here >> and but I love
living in san jose. Please vote
yes on the missing middle
housing plan to raise the
minimum to at least 32 dwelling
units per acre. Thank you very
much. Thank you dan followed by
delma. Good evening. Born and
raised here in san jose. I'm a
47 year resident of p6. We
raised a good family here,
bought a nice home here. I am
here this evening to express
my strong opposition to this
high density proposal in our
neighborhoods. While I
understand the need for
affordable housing in our city,
there is no such thing as
affordable housing in silicon
valley. It is a misnomer. I
believe that these projects
would have a detrimental impact
on our community. This is not
what I envisioned when I
purchased our homes here.
furthermore, the type
of housing development that's
being proposed is simply not
the neighborhood's. Please. We
think this. I urge you to
reconsider this proposal. I
believe that this proposal is
simply not the right fit for
our neighborhood. Your
neighborhood? This is not a
well thought out plan. This is
a blurred vision. I implore you
to vote no. Thank you. >> thank
you. Delma followed by mansour.
>> hi. Good evening. This is
thelma. I. I lived in district
five for 27 years. I support
allowing muslim missing middle
class. My goodness. Missing
middle housing in all
residential neighborhoods with
densities of up to 32 units per
acre. We urgently need more
affordable homes. We should we
should make better use of the
infrastructure we already have.
I also support making it easier
for school districts and faith
communities to build affordable
housing on our land and oppose
adding new parking requirements
that make housing harder to
build. At the same time, I also
urge the council to take
careful approach to the growth
of aa data centers and consider
their impacts on water,
electricity, infrastructure,
air quality, greenhouse gas
emissions. We use strong
enforceable standards and
meaningful community input
before allowing this growth to
continue unchecked. Thank you
mansoor followed by bedwell.
mansoor nasser. >> yeah. Higher
density doesn't result in
reduced prices. Look at london,
new york. Singapore, chicago.
rome. Madrid. Hong kong. To
name a few. The environmental
analysis and final
recommendations won't be
available until december 2027.
while I approve the framework
now and study the consequences
later. Please do not ruin a
great city and call it
progress. Thank you. >> thank
you. Manuel followed by j.r..
>> hi. Good evening, mayor and
council. And there's been no
set aside. I'm promising
at home I live in district four
and I just want to call in to
support increasing residential
neighborhood densities to 30
minutes per acre to support the
development of missing middle
housing from the charges and
committee memo. You know we
support increasing height
limits for middle houses
surrounding transit areas. And
then from the mayor's brown act
memo we support recommendations
where the need to pick up
lands. Also we oppose adding
new parking requires two
elements I think there's enough
parking to go around and in
certain districts seems to be
over part but there's means
of developing that that still
allow for the development
of high density housing in
certain regions of the city. So
that said, thank you for your
time and good luck with
everyone else's comments. >>
thank you, j.r. Followed by
teresa doerr. >> and evening
council I'm speaking in support
of council members command
tordillos memo hold the line on
no parking minimums don't undo
what the city already
got right. No more winchester
style carve outs for whoever
shows up and is the loudest
voice. I love the idea
of corner shops and bodegas.
let's be clear about why I'm
able to call in tonight.
san jose didn't restore remote
public comment out of goodwill
state law forced the city's
hand through sb 707 to bring
equity back to public
participation for years this
chamber has been dominated by
wealthy homeowners as we're
seeing tonight from districts
six, nine and ten with the
luxury of child care flexible
jobs and hours to sit here on a
weekday. It isn't civic virtue
it's privilege. Meanwhile, the
renters and working families
hit hardest by this housing
crisis are stuck in work,
at work in traffic or taking
care of their kids as the
campaign toward deals memo and
prioritizes housing over
parking thank you. >> thank you
teresa doerr followed by toni
there will be going to city
council members I am a
teresa I'm going to remove your
person to speak go ahead and
put your hand back up once you
get your audio fixed toni
followed by nathaniel mayor and
council movement for council I
beg you beg you to please vote
no on this. I have been in
my home for 47 years in
district nine. I pray every
time a house is sold on
my block that they don't put a
big gigantic thing and to have
32 units next to me would just
totally I would leave and
that's what I think is going to
happen is you're going to have
more and more people leave this
that have worked hard and been
in their homes for a long time.
there are places there are
buildings that are out there
that have nothing in the use
those for your high density I,
I totally totally believe that
we need to have affordable
housing but I don't think it's
going to happen even if you do
do the high density because
it's become ridiculous as with
the tech companies and the
wages that people are making
here so please please vote no
thank you nathaniel followed by
sandy. >> good evening. My name
is nathaniel and I've lived in
santa clara county for most
of my life and I'm here in
support of the missing middle
housing proposal. And I just
wanted to mention that I feel
like the a lot of this public
comment has come from like an
echo chamber of existing
homeowners. These are these are
people who have a home and who
are worried about how this is
going to affect their
neighborhood. And that's
understandable. But I also
wanted to mention that I feel
that right now there are
thousands of working families
in the city who are severely
burdened by housing costs
paying half their income in
rent, doubling up with
relatives or leaving that
region entirely and then and
missing middle housing is like
one step in the right
direction. So I just I'm asking
for you guys to please vote yes
on it. Thank you. >> thank you,
sandy followed by gorman
. Good >> evening mayor and
council members. I request that
you reject this city missing
middle proposal. Why? It just
makes absolute lutely no sense
at all. No parking space
minimums by right development
up to 32 homes on a current
single family lot and the list
goes on and on and on. I don't
think anyone is objecting to
more housing but what we are
objecting to is the increase
density and the density in
existing single family
neighborhoods. I asked that
before a vote is taken this
evening by council you do two
things and share that
information with the auditorium
and those online a tally for
the for and against written
comments. And I sure hope you
read them and a tally for the
for and against verbal
testimonies tonight think about
those numbers and the con >>
thank you gorman followed by
kenneth. >> >> hello city
council I want you to remember
you're on video we can see you
on your phones because you've
probably lost interest of all
these people giving their
opinions. I've also been here
since 130 and I'm very
passionate about rejecting
this. All of this as the
members of our city. This is
not a state requirement. This
is you this city who want to
take away the homes that we
paid for that we've worked for.
and if you if you listen >> to
the vast majority of the people
that are against it are
developers and real estate
agents because they're going to
be making millions off of the
backs of the people that made
san jose a desirable
neighborhood to live in. Okay.
thank you kenneth followed by
george kenneth kay >> I'm going
to move on. George followed by
jake after >> jake will be
sarina to george okay. Jake
followed by serena and after
serena we're back to teresa.
I'm here. When I heard about
this up zoning, I thought it
was honestly some trump
corrupts real estate developer
written proposal not our local
city council on development
planning board. I mean I hear
people say they want lower
housing, more affordability. I
totally understand that but
that's not what this is going
to do. When you go to buy a
house you're a first time
buyer. It's going to get bought
by a real estate developer.
they're going to outbid you
because they have more money
than you and then they're going
to take it and they're going to
build a bunch of houses on it.
they're going to sell it for
millions of dollars. They're
not buying them to lose money.
they're buying them to make
money. We're also one of the
places that it's the most
expensive to build as well.
that's why home prices are
super high as they are right
now. So I definitely urge you
guys as somebody that's in real
estate to vote no it's going to
hurt the city, not help it's
going to kill our
neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank
>> you, serena followed by
theresa doe hello. My name is
serena wu and I recently bought
a duplex with friends in
district three. I support
increasing housing density in
san jose to at least 32
dwelling units per acre because
it's clear to me from
my experience in the current
housing market how difficult it
is to find affordable housing
in san jose and our need for
additional housing to meet our
housing goals has been an issue
for years already housing
density does not increase
overnight after rezoning
according to the city's general
four year plan, the city needs
55 dwelling units per acre to
break even in terms
of providing the services the
people living there get. So an
increase to 32 dwelling units
per acre is only part of what
we need. I do not want a
crumbling san jose 30 years
from now. We need action now to
build towards a future that
supports the generations to
come. We need to vote yes on
little missing and missing
middle housing. Thank you.
thank you >> theresa. Theresa,
there is something you're not
you're microphone isn't showing
up at all so I think you are
still having audio problems.
caller 5140 please press star
six to unmute. Okay go ahead.
we can hear you. >> oh thank
you. Oh thank you. Great. Yeah
I think you guys need to reject
this. It's not going to work if
you don't have enough laborers
that you to do the work. The
building materials are super
expensive and I want anyone to
raise their hand there
including the city council. If
they took mass transit to even
get there today where they have
a great public transportation
connect they don't have. So
it's very important to not ruin
the neighborhood people who
have lived there for for a
while of what >> it's the same
person who is in person. Thank
you. Yeah. You can't go home
and raise your hand again, john
followed by george >> and john
kate george followed by
kenneth. Can you hear me okay?
you >> I took your permission
away because you're having a
really, really big feedback on
your microphone so try to fix
your audio. We're going to
go to kenneth followed by pm.
>> good evening. Can you hear
me? Yes, yes. Hi, I'm kenneth.
kenneth, have you ever saw
this? I live in district three.
I support >> enabling the
development of missing middle
housing in all residential
neighborhoods >> by increasing
density to 32 units per acre.
this will help create much
needed more affordable homes in
san jose make smart strategic
use of our existing
infrastructure and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by
letting people live closer to
where they live work I
encourage the council to take
this necessary step in keeping
with the city's housing element
commitment. I support removing
barriers including general plan
amendments for school districts
and faith communities that are
zoned pcp to build affordable
housing and other communities
serving uses on their land. I
oppose adding new parking
requirements or limiting the
parts of a city where middle
housing could be built. We need
it in every neighborhood. Thank
you so much. I yield my time.
thank you. P m followed by
chris hi. Thank you for
allowing me to address the
council. I was actually there
in person for several hours
today. However I have young
children and had to go and get
them to not take mass transit
because that would have been
impossible to pick them up that
school and get where they need
to be and soccer and I'm
sitting out here in the car
waiting for my daughter to end
her dance class so in general
there's a big difference
between allowing more housing
and changing the underlying
zoning expectations and I don't
know if any of you have driven
down bascom but all the new
apartments here and there's a
lot of vailable you know,
studios are starting at over
$3,000 so I'm really not sure
what's being proposed is going
to make things affordable. It's
just going to add new problems
and I think not solve what
we're ultimately trying to get
to here. So please I fear that
there's no going back if this
passes and I would like to see
a no vote. I yield my time.
thank you. Chris followed by
john I >> just like to speak in
favor of the missing as missing
middle proposal and ask the
council to vote yes. There are
a lot of other comments I just
want to I'm not a developer.
I'm a resident and I think a
lot of the comments sort
of like to highlight that
provides a lot of goes a long
ways to providing more housing
which is sorely needed and and
basically I think more housing
supply will help bring down the
the cost of housing and make
more housing available. There's
a meter across island saying
thank you >> thank >> you john
followed by teresa after teresa
I'm going to close now regina
just put her hand up after
regina. I'm going to close
online comments. I'm going to
call the last couple of names
of in-person okay, john,
go ahead. >> hi, this is john
hessler. I'm the vice present
of the center teresa foothills
neighborhood association. We
represent over 4200 homes in
the south san jose area and our
board of directors is
unanimously and strongly
opposed to the missing middle
proposal. We note that the
missing middle proposal
directly violates and
undermines a key principle
of the existing san jose
general plan known as major
strategy number three which
talks about keeping growth in
identified growth areas and
strictly limiting new
residential development through
neighborhood infill outside
of those growth areas to quote
preserve and enhance the
quality of established
neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank
you, teresa. Let's try one more
time and followed by regina can
you hear me? Yes. Good evening
. May or may han and >> council
members I'm a resident
of district six. I'm speaking
on behalf of over 1000 members
of san jose yimby we appreciate
the work you're doing to guide
san jose's future and we're
supportive of the direction
staff has taken. However, we're
concerned that reducing plan
density and reinstating parking
minimums in key neighborhoods
will limit the city's ability
to respond effectively to our
housing crisis. These areas
were selected because they have
strong infrastructure, good
transit access and existing
parking capacity, adding new
parking requirements or slowing
density makes housing more
expensive to build and reduces
the home number of homes we can
create where they make the most
sense if we miss these
opportunities. San jose loses
critical housing capacity this
affects people who keep our
city running firefighters,
teachers, nurses and other
essential workers who already
face long commutes. It affects
families trying to stay near
loved ones seniors on fixed
incomes who risked displacement
and the next generation of tech
workers who may choose other
regions if they cannot afford
to live here. San jose must
build the housing needed for
both today and tomorrow
policies that key thank >> you
regina. After regina it will be
debbie, debra and ted in
person. So debbie, debbie and
ted you can make your way down.
regina go ahead. Good evening.
my name is regina celeste in
williams and I'm the executive
director of sba at home and a
district three resident. I'm
really excited about the staff
recommendations because we are
sba at home support increasing
residential neighborhood
densities to 32 units per acre.
we want to support the
development of more housing
especially neighborhood scale
housing which can create much
needed affordable homes in
san jose and we encourage
council to really support
building more housing in this
city where people are looking
for more affordability from the
tordillos and campaign memo we
support increased height limits
for middle housing surrounding
transit areas and from the
mayor's brownback memo we
support the recommendations
related to pickup. We're very
excited about those
recommendations and we oppose
adding new parking requirement
to developments. Thank you.
thank you. Next speaker. >>
good evening mayor and council
members. And it's been a long
day. As a neighbor resident
curry neighborhood resident who
championed against the 17 story
proposal at 826 north
winchester, it's gratifying to
see the turnout today from more
san jose residents who love
this city and want to see a
thoughtful housing plan. I
strongly support the mixed use
neighborhood designation for
the winchester boulevard
corridor that is included in
the recommendation from council
members mulcahy, kendell and
ortiz. It's sensible, it's
reasonable and smart. It's a
realistic compromise. But I
have an important task and we
must address transportation
traffic and infrastructure bill
before we move forward with a
comprehensive housing plan. I
know you're under pressure from
the state but I know we can do
better. Thank you. Thank you.
next speaker I'd also like to
now announce that every single
card has been called from
inside and out. If you put in a
card and did not hear your
name, this is the time to line
up. Go ahead. Thank you, mayor
. And the council members I'm
debbie kerzner and I have lived
in san jose for 47 years in the
cary neighborhood. Our city is
a vibrant has a vibrant
downtown. It has vibrant
neighborhoods. They are
beautiful and they are the life
of san jose. Please do not make
our neighborhoods high density
parking lots on all of our
neighborhood streets. The new
apartments built recently in
our area of south winchester
and bascom are not affordable.
you want to increase density
but we already have traffic
problems and terrible
congestion. And that has not
been addressed. And we need the
public transit to be adequate.
please work to use the
unoccupied tech buildings and
apartments in the city to
increase the density. I >>
thank you that your time next
speaker. Mayor city council.
good evening. Life, liberty.
the >> pursuit of happiness.
that's what's going out the
door here. That's in the
declaration of independence
thomas written by thomas
jefferson. >> I think we've had
some paid speakers here tonight
that were >> supportive of this
>> and this area has not been
>> affordable for more than 40
years. Also I think it's a
disgrace for what I'll call
newbies to criticize people who
have lived here for 5060 years
and they don't know the
struggles that those people
including myself went through
to even get our homes 40 years
ago. I'm out of time. Thank
you. >> thank you. Next speaker
I support the >> memo from
council members mulcahy
candidates and ortiz rezoning
the winchester corridor as
outlined in their memo is
reasonable whereas the staff
recommendations were not. The
staff recommendations
contradict san jose's goal
of preserving the business tax
base. Why weren't businesses in
the affected zone consulted by
the city during the staff
recommendation process
regarding a26 winter storm? The
planning commissioner who
stated he visited the
neighborhood explained how that
exploration caused him to
understand 8 to 6 winchester
boulevard >> should not be re
zoned as the staff recommended.
come and see for yourself the
two legs of this l-shaped
property surrounded on exterior
sides by one side with the legs
>> with the leg connecting to
winchester being extremely
narrow. The need for more
housing doesn't justify trying
to pack the staff recommended
level density level into cary
neighborhood. Those >>
recommend that's your >> time
next speaker. This is our final
speaker. Well this has been a
fun night. Good evening,
council. First of all I want to
thank you staff for the work
that you've done. And I'd like
to say mayor mehan, if you
could be a little bit more
judicious with that gavel. I've
heard a lot of clapping
tonight. >> but I do want to
speak in very, very strong
support of the memo from
councilmembers come in terms
the desperate desperate need
for housing in the city is the
issue not only of the day
of the decade of multiple
decades and we really need to
be willing to take unpopular
actions that are the right
thing to do because the reality
is that this city is so
unaffordable that people like
me I'm 24 college student I
cannot afford to live here if
things keep getting worse.
people like me are not a
rarity. People my age and young
families are rapidly leaving
the city and the region for
lack of affordability. Please
vote. Thank you. Back to
council. All right. Thank you,
toni. Thank you to everyone who
spoke. We still have a number
of folks here in the chamber.
I'm really impressed with
everyone's wherewithal. It was
good to hear so many diverse
perspectives both in person and
on online. I'm going to may
make a few comments >> and ask
a few broader questions to
frame things up and then turn
to colleagues. You know, a
number of residents have asked
me over the last couple
of weeks why why are we here?
what are we what are we doing?
and >> I think the simplest
answer chris, I'm going to come
to you in a second to talk a
little more about this is that
we committed to a direction in
our approved housing element.
it's worth remembering we had a
housing element that was not in
compliance. It took three tries
and while we were out
of compliance we had we
builders remedy essentially
imposed on the city allowing
developers to build housing
even on employment land very
haphazard development where we
lost control entirely which is
a very bad place for the city
>> to be. And as we came into
compliance we made a commitment
to explore some of these more
modest densities. Now I think
the community has asked a very
reasonable question which are
series of questions which is
okay, there's been a lot
of state law that has come down
our way that has removed local
control and create a lot
of mandates. So you have sb 979
ab 1123 and chris, I think you
said about 450 bills but those
are some of the more >>
consequential ones. And the
question really is in terms
of what staff in the planning
commission are sending to us,
how different is it from what
state law already requires and
where it's different, why and
really understanding that
distinction that I think a
number of people pointed to.
now I understanding of sb nine
is that on most single family
lots in the city today an owner
a property owner can
essentially develop four units
and given that most single
family lots are around 6000ft²
we're roughly are in one 8 or 8
parcels eight lots to the acre.
four times eight is effectively
32. So chris, I just >> could
you comment first of all on how
much of a change we're talking
about what state law currently
allows a property owner to do?
and what's the difference and
why are we doing this? Can you
just go back through that
again? Yeah. Thanks, mayor. And
you have it right? So in the
prior house in our current
housing element we committed to
a missing middle program and
this actually dates back prior
to the development of a housing
element. If you'll recall
roughly five plus years ago
there was a conversation around
what was called at the time
opportunity housing. And the
council declined to move
forward at that time with that
proposal because sb nine was
coming into effect and the
thought was well let's see how
sb nine goes and you know we
can see what the implementation
looks like and what the impact
to our neighborhoods is. And as
>> a result, as we then moved
into our housing element
process and started to right
the housing element we are a
clear indication from hpd that
they wanted to see a missing
middle program pursued. >> and
they were very direct about
that and you know, they wanted
to put performance standards
around that and a timeline
which are all included in our
housing element. So you know
we're about midway through this
cycle we need to start
delivering on these programs.
you know, we've done a
significant amount of work
that's led to a lot
of implementation but this is
one of the major factors this
in the urban village strategy.
so as you approach this four
year review, you know, we
wanted to be considerate of the
current condition. We wanted to
think about a solution that did
help preserve the character
of single family neighborhoods
when we wrote our general plan.
a number of the speakers this
evening have been absolutely
correct. We prioritized high
intensity, high density
development along transit
corridors and in growth areas.
and part of the challenges we
have not seen all of that
development occur because
of economics and some of these
other reasons. So you know,
part of our approach is we know
we need to provide a great
variety >> in the types
of housing that the market can
>> achieve that respects and
preserves the character.
everything of our single family
neighborhoods. So we have a
situation where we're looking
at this program. We also have a
number of state laws that have
been implemented and you're
absolutely right on the density
question so under sb nine there
is the opportunity for four
primary units in the context
of to duplexes on one single
family existing single family
line. And so we felt like we
could create a program in the
city that sort of maintains and
or was parallel to what sb nine
would allow but that we could
design with the context of more
local design standards and
controls that would allow us to
sort of help preserve that
single family neighborhood
character. So that's the
approach that we took. You
know, we believe that that's
consistent with the spirit
of p35 in the housing element.
but sort of gets us the best
of both worlds but doesn't
really extend much beyond what
you can do on the state level.
>> okay. Thanks. Can you just
say the last part again if you
already today in most
residential neighborhoods can
buy a parcel and under state
law convert it to four to
redevelop it to four >> units
which we've seen a few examples
of but not a lot. My guess is
that doesn't actually pencil in
a lot of places but if you can
that's effectively 32 units to
the acre. So what's the
difference? And what you're
saying there's an advantage to
having >> this path rather than
sb nine. So we >> think there's
an advantage from the city's
perspective because it allows
us to implement design
standards that sort of a more
respectful of the neighborhood
character. I think the broader
policy objective of allowing a
local program is that there is
probably more market desire to
pursue this than some of the
restrictions that exist under
sb nine. So right now there's a
residency requirement, right?
so somebody who owns the law
has to stay in residence for
two years post development. And
that's been a significant
barrier to a lot of the people
that have explored sb nine as
an opportunity to >> couple
other issues adjacent to that I
would like to better understand
what mergers and whether or not
that >> is you kind
of reference to quickly as a
potential tool that council
might want to explore and I
think for context for the
public this is the first time
these recommendations are
coming to the council. There's
been a process where I'm going
to talk about the process and
public input in a moment as
well. But this is the first
time we're having this
conversation at this set
of recommendations that would
come back to the council in
over a year from now. So we are
not at the end of the
conversation. I want to be
really clear about that. On lot
mergers >> and to use so how to
add use count in the unit count
and what should we take from
that and and what is the risk
of what mergers or is that
maybe a restriction that
council might want to have in
its toolkit? So >> just to
start with lot mergers that is
something that we have the
ability to put standards in
place so we can you know,
restrict the ability to merge
logs. We can have restrictions
around lot sizes as well to say
that you can only do this
development on a certain size
that stops people from
aggregating so >> big corporate
developer can't come in you
know merge together, roll up 8
or 10 single family homes and
build some massive you know,
connecting on the middle of oc.
that seems important. So right
now >> as it relates to edu law
and one of the challenges again
by what we've seen both in
single family neighborhoods and
with multifamily development is
you know adu law tends to layer
on top of local provisions and
people are using that in
multiple different ways and
obviously there's a there's
much more much less
restrictions we can put in
place on adus. You know,
certainly they can build in
reduced setbacks. They require
no parking. The standards there
are very different. So in
theory, you know, adus sit on
top of whatever requirement we
create in our end. I think
again from our approach is to
design standards that encourage
the market to deliver a type
of development similar to the
types of you know, examples
that we showed in the
photographs. And what you'll
the utilizing the lot for the
four units or the three units
and it reduces the opportunity
to leverage edu as a you know
an additional sort of capacity
gain. Okay. Thanks. >> I think
given the way the state
interprets ada use and the
count as in not counting them
though they do count toward our
arena target so there seems to
be quite a discrepancy here in
how the state is as counting
need to use it yes in one case
not in another. But I think
that's part of the motivation
for our group member to say
let's look at a range. Let's
look at 16 to 32. Our member
also does speak to parking
requirements. We're allowed by
state law and the reality is in
much of the city we are
preempted by state law and not
allowed to impose a parking
requirement. And san jose was
actually a leader in removing
parking requirements. But
really if you were here for
that conversation it was in the
context largely of our downtown
urban villages near transit
multi-family denser development
where I remember very
distinctly one of the big
things we were pointing to
which I think still is is very
valid is the notion
of unbundled parking. If you
have an office building next to
an apartment or condo tower you
might be able to share the
parking because people need to
park at home at night in the
apartment building and maybe
park where they work and so you
could actually make more
efficient use of unbundled
parking in a place like
downtown or urban village. I
think when you get out into
councilmember ortiz's district
where I have walked many times
and seen families coming home
you know, people going home
from a second job having to
park six blocks from their home
every night to know that it is
something that when you get out
to the periphery of our city
you really need to be thinking
about that impact on people's
lives. I would say for I know
we have a number of very pro
housing folks who spoken and I
you know, often find myself
very aligned with that
perspective. I do think that we
shouldn't be overly
ideologically rigid about the
notion that we should never
have any kind of parking
requirement anywhere in the
city. I think that's that's
overly overly broad. So our
memo says let's let's study
that. I really appreciate the
group memo pointing to density
in fire high fire risk zones I
thought that was a really
thoughtful inclusion. I do
think we should be looking
at at lot mergers. So I think
what our memo and I think
colleagues memos point to is
some areas where we really
ought to study the notion that
we can be super dense in
downtown in urban villages and
then kind of have that go down
as you go out and start to
think about some of those other
impacts I will say I'm really
proud of all the actions this
council has taken to be
extremely pro housing removing
the you know increasing
capacity in in our plant growth
areas, removing the
construction tax, having to
park fees, removing the
unfunded inclusion requirement,
moving to ministerial
approvals, getting rid
of parking requirements. We
have led so many times on
saying yes to housing but I do
think that we need to really be
thoughtful about how we manage
change out in our
neighborhoods. So as was
pointed out in many cases state
laws have already dictated a
density level that you're not
recommending we go beyond I
don't think the public really
understands that which gets to
my last point. Public input.
can you just share with us up
to this point as you went
through the initial stage
of the process with the
planning commission and came
here to the council for the
first time with your
recommendation, what kind
of community engagement and
public input you you organized
and what we can expect over the
next year as this continues to
develop. >> yeah it
sounds great. Let mahan over to
ruth to talk through public
outreach and then maybe circle
back on what to expect. Thank
>> you mayor so staff in
partnership with the office
of racial and social equity and
our community engagement
consultant kicked off our
outreach strategy that we
discussed with council and
council approved last year. We
began with a virtual webinar.
we also employed different
methods to reach out to people
so we had four in-person open
houses across the city really
targeting communities that we
don't often hear from. We had
several leadership meetings six
I think it might be seven
actually we had our town hall
last week seven neighborhood
meetings with the office
of racial and social equity. We
were able to host three focus
groups. In addition, we had our
task force meetings which
allowed for public comment. I
think after the first meeting
public comment was taken before
the task force sort
of deliberated and gave us
their feedback. We met with
intergovernmental agencies and
also we sort of did our online
sort of email blasts and our >>
virtual open house. I will say
through our four in-person
houses we did touch sort
of communicate with over 800
residents and people in the
city. One of these open houses
was at veeva. So that's the one
where we actually were able to
talk to the most most of the
community and we had roughly
400 participants in the virtual
open house. >> thanks, ruth.
and then from this point
forward, whatever direction we
ultimately settle on here
you've got a process that runs
more than a year presumably
before we take a final vote on
where we are. What does that
community engagement look like
? Right. There's a number
of different opportunities for
us to engage the community both
in the formal process as we get
launch our environmental
process that has, you know,
very prescriptive elements as
well as sort of more of the
community engagement and
participation opportunities
that we'll be looking to craft
as we develop those standards
so we can create regular
touchpoints. We don't have all
of those aspects foley fleshed
out but I think we're going to
be looking for opportunities to
engage with partner departments
to continue to sort of spread
the opportunity to talk about
this as well as engaging with
those groups that we've managed
to reach through our process so
far to keep them you know,
engaged in this and allow them
to provide additional feedback
as we go. >> okay. And sorry to
put you on the spot with this
but does ppc have the capacity
to manage all that public
engagement? Do we need to talk
about what else as one team the
administration might do to
support a robust public
engagement process over the
next year? Yeah, absolutely. I
think obviously we're going to
look for those opportunities.
you know, with the city
manager's office we've had a
great partnership with the
office of racial and social
equity on our outreach so far.
and then as I said, I think
some of those other partner
departments that are also
consistently out with the
community they represent a
great opportunity for us to
partner and tag along to spread
sort of more engagement and
more information about what
we're doing. >> yeah, I just I
really don't want to be here a
year from now and have people
feel like they were not aware
that we were having this
conversation. So I just hope
jennifer the spirit
of leveraging the whole
capacity of the administration
that will find more ways to to
engage the public. I said that
was my last point. Just very
quickly though, chris, I do
want to know more about your
conversations with side the
risk of decertification. I
understand you said you just
had a call with them. What is
your sense of what they're
essentially are our obligations
are to stay compliant and what
would avoid decertification and
going back to builder's remedy
which I think we all want to
avoid. >> yeah. So obviously,
you know, this is really staff
level guidance. We reach out to
each side and work with them on
a fairly regular basis around
project issues and policy
issues. So they do make
themselves available when we
need to talk through this. So I
reached out end of last week I
was on a call with one of the
senior program managers with
each side on monday just
because we wanted to discuss,
you know, this item coming
forward to city council and
just get a sense of how they
might view, you know, an
alternate proposal based on
some of the memos that we were
seeing coming through from
council. Like I said, it's
staff level guidance. It's
certainly not a written opinion
by cdd. I think there's a
couple of important things that
came from that conversation. So
one is they look at our missing
middle program. Really the
focus is creating opportunities
for diverse housing in high
opportunity areas areas where
they don't currently exist.
there's a chart we used in I
think a study session and in
some of the other presentations
we've done that really
highlights that you know it
really is a missing middle.
there's a huge gap around these
types of housing throughout the
city. And so what they're
looking for and you saw the
high opportunity map is how do
we create opportunities for for
that gap, right? That's the gap
that ultimately we have. You
had it there for a second and
it's really around, you know,
so I mean we don't have a ton
of duplexes. It's really around
those opportunities for two or
3 or 4 units. You know, we're
seeing more opportunity through
some state law in the sort of,
you know, 10 to 20 and plus I'm
seeing some success there. But
they really sort of focused on
that high opportunity area
piece. What they did say was,
you know, obviously as they're
focused on it, they're looking
at what's already allowed under
state law and while, you know,
sb nine does allow up to four,
you know the focus in many sort
of places has been on lot
splits that allow two single
family homes. So in their
opinion, you know, they didn't
feel like a six units to the
acres sort of program was
substantially different from
what we would expect to see
under the current provisions
of sb nine. So they felt like
that, you know, would be a
concern now, you know, whatever
council's decision is today and
ultimately with implementation
of a program, it doesn't mean
that we're facing, you know,
the immediate repercussions of,
you know, decertification.
there's a process associated
with that that's baked into
state law into the government
code. You know, we would
certainly have the opportunity
to work with hpd to understand
that. But I think it's
important to understand that
there is a risk that currently
performing mid-cycle reviews
with all of the cities that
have, you know, housing
elements we just got a call
from them in july to do a
mid-cycle review. As was noted,
most cities are not performing
on the delivery of housing on
their arena number. So they are
really focused on program
performance. So when you look
at some of the challenges that
other cities have had with you
know, all the way to
decertification but also in
just you know, noncompliance
letters and some of the other
challenges, it's really been
around programing
implementation rather than
holding them to the minimum.
all >> right. Thanks for that
additional context from your
conversations with each city. I
think that's helpful. Okay. I
know the mix reset I had
councilmember cohen first and
then I did not keep track
of the rest but the mikes reset
about two hours into public
comment. So I'm going to go to
councilor cohen next. Just
before just before we
go forward, I just want to make
a note that I just I told >> on
councilmember cohen I'm sorry
he was first with the mikes
reset. I'm going to go to
councilmember calling first.
thank you. >> well, thank you
first of all to staff for all
the work that's gone into it up
to this point and thanks to all
the members of the public who
came out on both sides on all
sides of this issue. It's not
two sides. It's actually a lot
in this proposal, a lot more
than just one element although
I know a lot of the interest is
on the missing middle element.
there's a lot in this and so I
don't want to lose sight of the
fact that this is a much more
comprehensive look at the
general plan than just this one
issue of missing middle in
residential neighborhoods. But
I know that there's a lot
of well-placed fears when when
there's the potential to change
zoning. And so I want to thank
people who came out and and
expressed that and sat through
this long discussion of our
meeting. I know many have gone
home probably to listen online
but I appreciate those who have
stayed and want to listen to
the rest of the conversation.
I'm going to just start first
of all just talking a little
bit about the missing middle
item and then talk about a
couple of other things.
although I want to point out I
know some couple of commenters
talked about the focus on areas
where we want higher density
and north san jose is one I
represent north san jose.
my focus regardless of how this
moves forward will continue to
be on bringing developers into
north san jose to build high
density housing where we want
high density housing and I'm
excited about several projects
that are under construction now
and coming that are in much
higher density places. That's
what we're going to get a lot
of our housing units and will
continue to be my focus. But I
also want to point out that
rightfully so our staff and
myself are continued to focus
on preserving commercial land
in north san jose and not
rushing to convert commercial
land into the housing as well.
we have a lot of land in north
san jose that's designated for
housing but our commercial land
is really important to us and
we don't want to lose it. You
know there's there are concerns
>> about what it looks like
when people build this kind
of this kind of multi-unit or
turn a property from one house
into several. And I just want
to say in my district there are
already some examples of some
sites where people have used sb
nine to subdivide and build 3
to 5 units mostly three and
four units on a single
property. You can see them
along piedmont road and a
couple of places usually it's
done where there's a
dilapidated or vacant parcel
very rare that someone's going
to, you know, buy a $2.5
million house and then decide
to tear it down. I mean that's
you know, economically I don't
know that it works but a lot
of this happens where there's
something that needs to be
replaced anyway. But you can
see that these don't really
change. This doesn't happen
enough enough to change the
overall character of the
neighborhoods that that they're
happening in. But I do
appreciate your explanation as
to why having our own procedure
can actually allow us to
implement better codes or
requirements in the development
because if people use sb nine
we have no say over what a very
little say over what those
projects end up looking like.
there are also neighborhoods in
my district that are mostly
single family but have >> 430
to 40 years have had duplexes
and fourplex in them so you can
walk those neighborhoods and
see that mix. Sometimes you
don't even know that some
of the buildings are fourplex
versus the single family homes
next door. So there are
examples of neighborhoods where
that mix is working. Having
said that, we have 11 people on
this council and I suspect
there's 11 opinions as to what
the right outcome is. So you
will see that in the memo that
I was part of along with mayor
mehan and kosmas foley, casey
and campos that we are asking
for staff to do the analysis
of a range of densities so that
we have an understanding as to
what the analysis tells us
while we also working with hpd
and continuing to gather public
input. So our item asks for
continuing to review 1624 and
32 as potential numbers and we
obviously be having this
conversation going forward.
it's another six months at a
minimum before we would be
voting on some final outcome
here. The other thing that was
important to me and I know I
heard from a lot of members
of the public was this question
of parking right now and this
is something that's kind
of lost in this conversation
right now. There's many homes
in our city because of the
affordability issues where
multiple families are living in
a single family home. That's
pretty much the same outcome as
a four plex on a property with
four families living in it. If
you have a single family home
with multiple families living
in it, I would say it's
preferable to have separate
units for each of those
families. So >> the result
though and in case and I know
some districts like district
five are particularly impacted
but all of our districts have
it is that there is not parking
and we end up with this parking
problem where multiple families
are living in single family
homes now we have parking
overflowing. We have issues on
the streets based on that
experience I feel that it's
important for us to outside
of the state restricted areas
to create a parking standard.
and my understanding I think
you kind of said this before is
that those who are doing this
now are typically including
parking. Can you clarify this?
but typically including parking
because they want a sellable
marketable product when they're
done? That's correct. Yeah. The
examples we've seen so far have
included parking and again when
we removed our parking minimums
part of that conversation was
that the market would adjust to
provide the appropriate parking
and you know we've seen
examples where that's gone both
ways but in instances like this
we've seen it always provide
at >> least clearly in the
higher density projects there's
still there's still some
experimentation that that's
happening. But I think in these
lower density sites that it's
typical that they're wanting to
provide at least one parking
space for each unit that
they're building already. So
I'm going >> to try to craft
out of all the memos and I
appreciate all the all of my
colleagues on the council for
all the work that they've done
on various things and I'm going
to put together a motion
combining >> a whole lot
of stuff and leaving some
openings for additional
conversation on some of the
things that I'm not clear on in
other people's memos. >> first
moving the the full group memo
>> that that I was part of that
includes the parking not
parking it number the range
of explanation of the range
of densities pickup and I'm
going to make a quick comment
about pickup while I'm on it
though there's been some
discussion about blanket
rezoning of pickup properties.
I think it's important for us
to to continue to have that
message out there that in the
long run there will be a
certain amount of pickup
properties that are necessary
as we hope that more
affordability gets in place and
more children come back into
our communities. We shouldn't
encourage the wholesale loss
of pickup lands and so I think
a thoughtful process for each
peak conversion is important
but I think an expedited
process to do that pickup
conversion would be helpful to
people who want to make that
conversion. But there's a
couple of items here on pickup.
there's also a specific item in
south san jose. Our item number
two in our memo for a the
property at coral on coral road
in district two >> in the memo
from candela ahi and or ts I'm
going to at this point include
item 1ai1 which is the moderate
fire severity zones making sure
that we are taking that into
account in our in our plans
because I know that some of our
districts in the hillsides
particularly have that issue
and some of them don't have a
lot of ways in or out of those
neighborhoods. So it's
important for us to take that
into account. >> the one be in
that memo include one, be in
that memo on one, see, I'm
going to I'm going to probably
ask councilmember kay later to
make some clarification.
my motion at this point will
ask that we don't rezone as was
recommended by the planning
department because
my understanding from their
explanation is that the the
moon designation would actually
potentially underutilized some
properties on that on that
place but leaving it the way it
is would allow side by side
discussions about appropriate
uses. But we can discuss that
as we move forward >> include
item d and e from the memo and
on f. Well I support the idea
>> we will bring will be
included and included in the
october 6th discussion from pbc
on the overall set
of priorities of all the work
that they've been asked to do.
so we will include that but it
would go to that the priority
session on that at that time
and the memo from tordillos and
may I we I did not have the
benefit of being part of the
brown act to understand number
one as well as I should and get
a full feel for the rationale
and all the thought so I'm
leaving it out of the motion
but offering the opportunity
for the members of that brown
act or the members of that the
authors of that memo to provide
context and we'll consider that
one independently include item
number two changing the >> word
develop to explore and include
number three and on number four
include it with the caveat that
I would like a better
clarification of the definition
of downtown. I'm a little
concerned about how wide
ranging it could be and and
exactly what that means. So
leaving it open for us to
discuss the actual definition
in the motion and then item
five one would be included as
part of our number which number
was that? Our our number are
one >> pc0 sorry 11c so
basically it's the same thing
allowing the commercial and
then including these
restrictions on that commercial
as part of you would include
the sub point include the sub
point as part of our one c in
our underlying memo. So that's
the that's the motion that I
put on the floor. Thank you. Oh
yeah, sure. On >> our memo what
did you say about one d and >>
I, I included danny yeah as as
written. >> okay. I think
that's a great basis for
discussion and I appreciate
that. Councilor don, I know you
had also I think you got out
of line there when we had the
confusion a moment ago so I'll
let you go and go next and then
I'm going to go through the
order I have on my screen. But
go ahead, councilor one >> I
appreciate that mayor how well
I support two san jose goal to
have producing more housing and
recognized a needs for
additional housing option.
my concern is whether we built
housing it is where and how we
add these density >> and
particularly concerns about the
impact of the proposed
implementation of p dash 35 and
missing middle housing on
establish single family
neighborhood and district >>
£0.07 >> 35 call for expanding
opportunity for small multi
housing multifamily housing
generally 4 to 10 units but the
original policy contemplate
strategically location
including major street urban
village area transition area
and other location appropriate
for additional density. I am
concerned that >> the current
four year review could take
that concept much further by
substantially increasing
development capacity throughout
residential neighborhood area
before doing >> that, council
should clearly establish
whether this broader approach
is actually necessary to
accomplish the goal of p 35. It
>> changed from predominantly
one home per parcel to the
possibility of 4 to 10 units
per parcel is not simply an
increase of housing supply. It
>> can fundamentally change the
physical characters of the
neighborhood. Speaking
specifically to district seven,
the city has designated area
for substantial growth and
redevelopment. I want the staff
to explain why additional >>
density needs to be broadly
distributed across establish >>
residential neighborhood rather
than concentrate on more growth
along major corridor transit,
urban village and other areas
already plan for greater
intensity different
neighborhoods have different
street worth infrastructure
transit access and existing
density. A citywide standard
may not produce a proper result
in every single neighborhood.
my memorandum proposed a four
weeks delay on this item for
staff to return. Would it clear
to the lack of information and
or misinformation causing or
resident concerns such as
increased traffic, parking,
congestion overcrowding,
property value and change in
the neighborhood? Characters?
and I think that we need to
make it even more transparency
c to reduce >> the amount
of confusion especially an
overwhelming letter that was
sent in from the public
comments saying no and the
government should not interfere
with the free market therefore
we need more time so >>
therefore I move to have in
substitution >> to >> approve
my memorandums for a 30 days
setback to reset to engage >>
more with our constituent to
make sure we hear and
understand what their concern
and end of the day there is a
very legit argument that our
constituent voters in to be
their representation >> and I
asked for a second >> right to
have a second on the substitute
I'm not hearing any you did I
did hear a question for staff
in there did you? Yes, I do and
let me you want to ask that as
to staff question on this why
>> isn't the city concentrate
more of the additional housing
capacity in the existing growth
area like urban villages, major
corridor corridors, transit
before changing the development
pattern of the established
neighborhood. So again,
councilmember and maybe I'll
let the team answer this as
well but you know we continue
to believe that growth in our
growth areas and urban villages
along the transit corridors and
you know, major arterials is
absolutely the the right way to
go. There's you know, a
considerable amount of housing
capacity already contained in
those areas and we have over I
think it's over 26,000 units
entitled throughout the city
for various different types
of housing development. And I
think what we're trying to
achieve with this policy is a
diversity of housing type. So
really sort of address that gap
where we don't have an
opportunity for this well you
know it is an increase in
density. We would still
consider this lower density
than some of those other areas.
we don't have opportunity for
these types of developments
around the city where you can
see, you know, rowhouses or
town townhomes or small
apartment blocks. So you know,
we don't want to go back and
reduce the density in any
of those growth areas to allow
for this type of development.
so we're looking for other
opportunities is and you know,
the most the most practical
alternative is to find a
solution that's in keeping with
the neighborhood character in
our single family districts and
allow this you know what some
people refer to as gentle
density throughout the city in
a way that sort of equitable.
if I could just add to
councilmember jared ferguson,
principal planner, something we
haven't spent a ton of time
talking about but chris
mentioned in his presentation a
key point of what we were
undergoing in this for you
review is also a part of our
housing element to evaluate our
urban village strategy. It was
something mentioned in the
letter from hpd that they were
going to be monitoring but how
we could improve and speed up
how we do our urban village
plans because it is still an
emphasis that we do want to see
continued housing production in
those areas. But how do we
speed up the completion of the
plans for the 40 plus village
that haven't been planned since
2011? So >> it is still a very
key and important aspect of how
we're going to produce housing.
but this is an additional
strategy to to produce units
above and beyond that. Thank
you for that explanation. But I
understand that even though we
estimated at 26,000 housing
toward the transit and the
major corridors but we haven't
seen those fruition >> until we
see the fruition we we can't
put the horse >> and the cart
before the horse. We have to
take one >> step at a time. We
see those fruition then we can
go okay, we can take the next
steps and I think it's
important that again I want to
make sure that even though
there's no one second
my substitution, I want to make
sure that the communication,
the transparency to our
residents out there continues
as we move forward. >> thank
you so much. Thanks,
councilmember and I appreciate
your emphasis on public input
which is why I also asked some
questions about how many town
halls and other outreach
opportunities have we had so
far and then over the next six
months or so, what's the
expectation for actually doing
even more because we certainly
don't want residents to come
here a year a year from now and
feel like they didn't have
ample opportunity to really
learn and engage and give
input. All right. Thank you,
councilor. Let's go now to
councilmember claudius. >>
thank you, mayor. And thank you
everyone from the public who
came out to speak today and
provided comments online even
though there are again a
diversity of opinions in the
room today. And I also want to
thank members of the planning
commission and planning staff
who've been working on this for
the better part of a year to
get us to this point. You know,
as I was preparing for today's
meeting I saw a headline that I
think really for me put the
stakes of these sorts
of decisions into context. I
think some of the public
commenters referenced that as
well and it was around the
publication of the 2026 silicon
valley pain index and that
report leads off with a pretty
sobering statistic which is
that there was yet another
study that identified san jose
as the least affordable city to
purchase a home anywhere in the
world. So I know throughout the
public comment tonight there
was a lot of talk about the
american dream and what that
means and I personally don't
think that we can sit up here
and pretend as if the american
dream is alive and well when
homeownership is so out
of reach for so many of our
residents here in san jose and
even amongst those who do
manage to purchase homes, data
from the american community
survey shows that over a third
of homeowners in san jose are
currently cost burdened and the
story is far worse for renters
with data showing that well
over half of renters in our
city are rent burdened. I've
said it before and >> I'll say
it again that in my limited
time in this office addressing
our housing affordability
crisis is my number one
priority and the fact is that
we know that the root cause >>
of that crisis is a severe lack
of housing. At the same time we
know that the city continues to
fall dramatically short of all
of our housing goals so far
with the most recent progress
report, we're on track to meet
about one third of our rina >>
obligation foley acknowledging
that other cities are also
struggling in that department.
but with that translates to is
a shortfall of about 40,000
homes and critically this is
not some recent trend that we
can just attribute to the
pandemic or to the current
interest rate environment or to
tariffs driving up the cost
of materials. This is a trend
that has held for many years
and we've missed our housing
targets by a significant margin
every single year since 2014.
and to me that means that we do
need to look at new strategies.
I want to acknowledge that many
of the commenters here today
did clarify that they're not
opposed to all new housing.
they just question if it needs
to be happening in their
neighborhoods. And I think
folks have raised some very
well reasoned questions about
why we can't just meet our
housing goals or whether we
can't meet those goals by just
focusing on construction in our
urban villages and in downtown.
but I think that our history in
this domain has shown that the
honest answer to that question
is that no, we cannot. That
focus on trying to funnel
nearly all new housing growth
in our city into a tiny sliver
of our land has been the
dominant strategy that we have
pursued for housing growth
since the adoption of our
current general plan back in
2011. And I think if we are
being honest with ourselves
that strategy has largely
failed and it is the most
vulnerable residents in our
community who have
disproportionately borne the
price of that failure. So to
me I think it's clear we need
to be open to new approaches
here and I think as a city we
need to move past the notion
that somehow we're going to
meet all of the new housing
need for a city of a million
people on just the without ever
touching the 80 or 90% of land
that is currently zoned to only
allow single family homes. You
know, folks have rightfully
questioned what this might mean
in terms of changes to their
neighborhood. I know my husband
gave public comment and he
noted that we live in between a
six plex and a five plex on a
block that has about half
single family homes and half
small apartment buildings. I
don't think that I've
personally seen in
my experience the sorts
of quality life concerns that
some folks are concerned about.
but change is scary. But I will
just say that rejecting this
proposal will not prevent our
neighborhoods from changing.
all it will do is further the
trends that we are already
seeing with growing
homelessness continued
displacement of our most
vulnerable residents. We will
continue to see the strain on
all of our teachers >> and our
public workers and our police
officers who can't afford to >>
live in the cities that they
serve. And we'll see the
continuing impacts on families
as young people are priced out
of >> the city because they
realize that they can't afford
to raise children here. I also
think it is important that we
as a council move forward with
this proposal on missing little
housing today. I did want >> to
just touch on a couple of the
things that I heard because I
think there's been a lot
of confusion and misinformation
around some of these proposals.
you know, we repeatedly heard
people referencing 16 unit
apartment buildings, 20 unit
apartment buildings, people
saying that this will make us
denser than new york city. I
just want to be absolutely
crystal clear that that is not
what this proposal is about.
for the vast majority of the
single family lots in the city,
this proposal will translate to
a modest increase over what is
already allowed under state law
as the mayor outlined most
likely 2 to 6 primary homes on
most parcels throughout the
city. >> and we have also heard
that this proposal was extreme
but it is way out of alignment
with what other major cities
are doing to tackle our housing
crisis. I don't think that that
is borne out in the data that
I've seen and if anything I
think that the program that
we're proposing here is
actually much more modest than
what some other cities are
doing. A couple of years ago
washington state passed a law
that legalized six units per
single family parcel in every
single major city in the state.
and here in california,
san diego already allows seven
units per single person single
family home parcel >> which
works out to about 30 to 50
dwelling units per acre more
than we're proposing here in
berkeley as was mentioned about
70 dwelling units per acre more
than double what san jose is
evaluating and sacramento has
no density cap at all. On the
missing middle programs in
their residential zones
allowing ten or more units on
single family lots. And finally
I just want to speak to this
notion that this is not a
required program. You know,
staff has already spoke to the
risk of decertification by hpd
and I agree that that is not
something that would be
immediate but I do think it is
a very real risk. The city made
very clear commitments in our
housing element that we would
allow 4 to 10 units on parcels
throughout the city. We provide
additional metrics in terms
of how many total additional
residential units of capacity
would be added. And I reached
out to the housing
accountability chief with hpd
myself and said point blank if
the city tries to walk back its
commitments here, if we don't
move forward with this program
or if we try to downscale the
program below what was
committed in the housing
element, would that be grounds
for decertification? And she
said quote yes. Should the city
choose not to implement the
housing programs it should can
review the inaction and revoke
its finding of compliance. So I
think that the >> potential
ramifications here we cannot
pretend as if they are
imaginary. Finally, since I
know there were some questions
about the memo from myself and
council member committee, I
want to speak to a couple
of those items. I think the one
that we are most excited about
or I'm most excited about I
won't speak for my colleague is
the local density bonus
program. And I think it's
actually timely that we are
hearing this item now because
we just saw with item 10.2 a
missing middle housing
application that we're actually
leveraging state density bonus
law and with that application
we saw that they waived height
limits, they waived
requirements around lot
coverage, they waived setbacks.
they basically got to just
ignore all of the local
development >> standards that
we as a city set. So the idea
behind this program is that
since legally the city cannot
prevent >> builders from
pursuing this state density >>
bonus but what we could do is
provide an appealing local
alternative >> density bonus
program that actually does
preserve local control. So that
is the intent of what is
recommended in our memo. We can
set up an alternative local
pathway that they can pursue
that does require that
applicants adhere to local
development standards things
like building heights setbacks
and open space requirements.
and we can use that to provide
an incentive for builders
of missing little programs to
actually make sure that they're
building missing little
projects that are a good fit
for our community. And then
just speaking again on the
increased height limits that
are proposed near downtown
transit hubs, I'm fairly open
minded here. I would defer to
staff in terms of what they
evaluate as appropriate here.
we have been primarily trying
to target the kind of highest
capacity transit nodes that are
already in existing denser
neighborhoods that have kind
of well connected
pedestrianized grid networks.
understanding that some
of those, you know, peripheral
downtown transit hubs are close
to the freeway. Maybe there is
not a clear walking path to
actually get to the other side
of the freeway. So we would
just recommend that staff come
back with some recommendations
around this specific subset
of downtown downtown transit
stations that they think would
be appropriate for this kind
of increased but still
transitional height limit
of 45ft. So with >> oh sorry I
was just going to say I'm going
to take those those sound like
friendly amendments. I want to
give you and councilor cohen an
opportunity to maybe dialog and
see if that gets you. >>
absolutely. I was going to
request a friendly amendment
for the elements that were left
out of the original motion
which I believe is item one and
item four >> and four wasn't
left out. I put it in but I
just want to make sure there's
clarification and I, I guess I
can ask staff on this one it's
I mean I don't want to
wordsmith and try to decide
what downtown means today but
you would interpret this to
mean you would come back with a
reasonable program that would
allow some flexibility on where
the boundaries are, where it
would apply. That's correct.
okay. So that's I mean we
already included that one. The
other one I just want to ask
the question so the advantage
of this is a >> a speed
question. They could do it
faster >> than they could with
the state density bonus or
what's the well, I guess I just
was curious about what would
lead somebody to choose the
local versus the state density
bonus. I think a component
of it could be speed. I think
it could also be based on what
other other requirements staff
would recommend including as
criteria for pursuing the local
path. I think we would need
something if we're going to ask
developers to kind of waive the
ability to exceed local design
standards. So maybe that means
that we adjust the
affordability thresholds to tap
into the density bonus program.
maybe it means a faster
guaranteed many ministerial
permit timeline. I just think
that it would be valuable to
have a local alternative so
that we don't see all of these
projects just tapping into
state density bonus law to
exceed any development
standards that staff comes up
with in partnership with our >>
communities. I think it's an
intriguing >> idea. Let me just
ask one question of staff on
this one. You know, there's a
lot of stuff being loaded on
here. There's a lot of other
stuff being worked on. So just
what is your feeling about what
this does to the timeline
of this or the your your
ability to to create such a
program as well also doing all
the other things that are being
asked for >> here. So so we
agree there's a lot
of opportunity here and I
actually think you know there's
a lot of really good work for
us to do. Obviously would love
to be able to do it all as
quickly as possible. So we're
currently in the process
of doing that analysis so we
can come back on october 6th to
have the conversation. I think
part of that was waiting for
this conversation so we could
see what kind of gets added.
some of it gets sequenced in
right and there's a sequential
aspect. Some of it needs to be
prioritized and we have to make
choices of some aspects ahead
of others. So I think, you
know, we'll need to hear how
the conversation goes and then
come back on october 6th with a
sort of full analysis. But
again, I think it would fit
within that context and and you
know, it's appropriate for us
to look at it though. So so >>
I will accept it with the
understanding. I think that
amongst the dozens of things we
have asked over the years for
this department to handle, we
will be prioritizing all
of those in october and this
will be part of that
conversation. So that would be
yeah, I foley expect that this
should be prioritized alongside
everything else on staff's, you
know, hefty plate. The only
other thing that we'll note and
we noted this in the memo as
well is that another housing
element program that the city
did commit to was evaluating
expanding our at the local
density >> bonus opportunities.
so we think that this is
actually aligned with existing
work that staff has already
tentatively committed to for
2027 in the housing >> element.
>> I got to ask this. Sorry I
have to ask the second or if
she'll accept this so so you're
>> accepting it as a friendly
amendment? I'm concerned about
the scope that it's adding on
to staff and I just hate to add
something to staff and then
come back on october 2nd six
and we all say oh yeah, that's
too much. And now we've taken
it away. What's your what's
your. I mean if it says to be
reviewed as a priority in
october 6th I'm happy with
that. >> yeah, I think that
makes sense to us. Again, we
have to there's a let me pause
for a second. There's obviously
a finite capacity into how much
work we can get done. You know,
certainly within the next six
months we have plans and our
work plan across the next 3 to
5 years. You know, really what
we're looking at is is not to
sort of say none of this is
good work. It's about how does
it sequence and how does it fit
together. And that's really the
priority conversation that
we'll be having in october.
it's not to say hey, throw all
of this stuff out. We don't
want to do it anymore. It's
about hey, we really need to do
this work up front. So you
know, probably highest priority
for us is the work that we will
sort of get out of this
conversation to move forward
those programs in the existing
housing element and prepare us
for the next housing element as
well as anything that touches
existing state laws that we're
trying to implement. So we
would fit it in within that
context and then look at the
rest of you know, what's on the
plate to make a best guess
at how that then sequences
after. >> oh okay. All except
it in in those terms. But it's
very complicated and for for
me to understand it I'm having
a hard time getting my head
around what the implications
are, what are the unintended
unintended consequences of it
so I think by october 6th when
it comes back we'll be able to
have more of a discussion about
unintended consequences of it.
but but for now I'll accept it
as a friendly amendment. Okay.
and councilor >> richards, you
had the floor. Was that your
last your last piece? Okay,
great. So I'm going to turn now
to thank you and I'll turn to
councilmember condell us. Thank
>> you, mayor. First of all,
thank you to chris and your
staff for the work today and
also for the presentation this
evening as as well as to
my brown art group for >> their
conversation and engagement and
policy debate that we had the
last couple of weeks. And you
know, I also >> want to take a
brief moment to folks who are
still >> here or listening on
line who came out and spoke on
this item. You know this is a
major moment for policymaking
in our city and our impacts and
our community's voice is
important in helping us
understand the impact of our
decisions. And you know, there
are there are a few areas that
I want to speak to and the
first is yes, state law has
already taken a lot of land use
authority from cities. However,
there is a difference to what
could be done to what is being
proposed as someone who earlier
noted I don't know if they're
still here there appears that
we're quote unquote overdoing
it. And you know, I'm going to
be blunt. I believe that we're
being asked to essentially take
a shortcut a one size fits all
approach that treats the entire
city as if every neighborhood
is the same not not to mention
proposed projects under this
program are by right >> I make
little to no public comment.
again from the staff
recommendation raising the
density limit from eight units
per acre to 32 units per acre
across roughly 85% of our
of our residential >> land. You
know it's not thoughtful enough
this blanket this blanketing
of the city with a single
number and calling it progress.
and while yes it's it's under
state law developers can
already get these densities
it's not our policy it's state
law and so san jose is not
uniform. San jose has different
neighborhoods that sit near
frequent transit walkable
commercial corridors, existing
infrastructure, other
neighborhoods not so much. And
by choosing this blanket
approach I think we avoid the
harder work of identifying
which areas we can genuinely
support more housing sequencing
the transit and infrastructure
investments and writing
standards that respect
different neighborhoods context
things like egress, ingress,
public safety response times,
parking minimums and
development standards. You
know, instead of doing the the
careful analysis, I think the
proposal simply multiplies the
density number of by four and
applies it citywide. You know,
I want to be clear that, you >>
know, this is not an opposition
to housing as several folks
have said that it's opposition
to what appears to be careless
housing policy and the
unintended consequences that
may create. And you know, I
think we deserve a thoughtful
approach that respects the
differences between our
neighborhoods and recognizes
that once density grants a
rights are granted, they're
extremely we can't we can't
take it back. We know the state
law doesn't let us down so and
so you know, when this comes
back to us next december, our
options are going to be limited
based on the alternatives and
the direction we provide staff
today. So that's what makes
this this conversation that
much more vital. You know, I
think there's there's there's
an important point that I want
to quickly touch on is you
know, there's a power dynamic
with with cd that it
essentially forces our hand to
make decisions you know that
that are you know can perceived
to be against our residents and
the will of our residents the
people who for us on the dais
who voted us in. And so you
know I don't I don't buy this I
believe we have the right to
implement a program as we see
fit. And so when it comes to
housing affordability and
spurring development, I've seen
our council take a balanced
approach to not only taking
every option available to us to
make a difference but doing so
in a way that doesn't
compromise our city's fiscal
sustainability and the quality
of life for our residents. You
know, in march 2025 this
council unanimously adopted
direction to the administration
to explore densify outside
of our growth areas where the
market dictated excluding
excluding high vmt >> areas,
having empty areas have been
identified as part of our city
that lack reliable transit
options with limited routes for
for again getting in and out
of it out of those areas we
have deemed these areas read on
a map for a reason and again a
couple of months later in june
2025 staff returned with the
memo mirroring the language
that was proposed in the scope
of work for the general plan
four year review and I quote
staff will include in the
analysis city council direction
from the march budget message
to expand growth areas to where
there is current market demand
for housing and employment uses
except in areas with a medical
>> vmt impacts this direction
was approved unanimously by
this council and yet the
recommendations before us takes
us to a different path applying
uniform density across the city
than the more targeted approach
and I understand the concerns
as explained by staff. I get it
but it's very disheartening to
to be here and not have this
flag or not have the concerns
of potential decertification as
a threat beforehand >> and or
you know, at the 11th hour
getting a phone call from aicd
essentially saying hey, you're
going to be decertified and
yes, it's not overnight and
yes, it's a series of lack
of implementation of what we
said we were going to do
through the through the housing
element. But it just does not
sit well with me. And you know,
I appreciate
councilmember cohen's motion
and the ability to try to get
something but but I just wanted
to express my frustration and I
in the spirit of of
collaboration I may offer up a
few more comments but that's
that's I look forward to
hearing from the rest of my
colleagues before I do so >>
thanks. Thanks.
councilmember >>. >> all right.
let's go to
councilmember ortiz. Thank you,
mayor. I want to start by
thanking city staff the
planning commission for all
your work that has gone into
this four year review. I >>
want to begin just with one
of the additions in our memo
that I believe is particularly
important for serious >> about
meeting our housing goals. Then
we also need to look at our own
processes and identify where we
may be creating unnecessary
barriers or delays for
projects. Right now applicants
>> have only one opportunity
each year to advance a general
plan amendment. If they miss
that window >> it can mean
waiting another year while
continuing to carry land
financing and pre-development
>> costs for some projects that
additional >> time and expense
can make the difference between
whether a viable project moves
forward or whether it doesn't.
our recommendation which >> was
accepted into
councilmember collins motion
creates an >> additional
general plan amendment cycle
for residential, commercial and
public quasi public sites
giving us another opportunity
to move projects forward
without changing any of the
underlying review or approval
requirements. I also want to
say even though it's not really
my district, I do support the
vmt and vmt based protections
in our memo >> given sb 70 >>
nine and sb nine. Majority
of my district >> is already on
the road to being >> extremely
dense so this vote doesn't
really impact my area that
much. But I think sometimes we
get individuals who get really
>> bogged into dogmatic policy.
I call them policy wonks and
things are good on paper.
however, when we actually move
forward with development they
>> don't actually make sense. I
think the faa in downtown
san jose was a good example.
people do not want housing
without parking and especially
>> in areas >> like east
san jose where they're spread
out and we don't have the best
transportation system already
developed. It makes things
difficult especially for
working >> class people who
rely on their cars. And so
while >> you know, the the
addition of potential parking
in the overall motion was
included, it won't necessarily
impact my district given >> you
know, the level
of transportation that exists
>> there. I think it's good
because as we look at our city
sprawling out and expanding,
these developments are going to
need parking because people >>
want in city of san jose people
will not go into apartments >>
or condos that don't provide
spaces for their cars. This
isn't new york and it's not
chicago. And so we need to make
sure that as we make our land
use decisions we reflect that.
I >> understand that we do need
to create additional housing
capacity citywide but I do
struggle with the idea that on
one hand we recognize that
higher densities make the most
sense in areas with strong
transit infrastructure and good
access to jobs and services
while on the other hand we
could apply essentially the
same density increases to
neighborhoods where residents
have fewer transportation
options, experience more
traffic and may already have to
drive further to >> meet their
everyday needs. We can
reconcile these two goals and
make sure we're thinking about
the infrastructure needed to
support density where we're
actually creating it. I'm >>
also generally supportive
of providing more flexibility
in our public quasi public
lands. There's a balance to
strike between preserving these
important community spaces and
giving schools faith
institutions and other property
owners more opportunities for
housing, child care, recreation
and community serving uses. And
with >> that, I do have a
couple questions for staff.
first, I'd like to better
understand how long we have >>
to decide on density and
whether we'll have more
definitive guidance on exactly
how high our dwelling units per
acre needs to be. How soon do
we need to make a final
decision on residential
neighborhood density to remain
compliant with the housing
element? >> thanks
councilmember. So this was
mentioned by
councilmember tordillos as
well. There are some both
timeline and metrics associated
with the program. So there are
specific milestones we're
supposed to meet. And so we're
already a little bit behind
some of those milestones in
terms of when we would have
these land use decisions done.
so I think as long as we're
continuing to show progress and
show work that we're going
forward with these things, you
know, we can we can stay
compliant. But if we continue
to delay, that's when we would
get into a situation where they
may look unfavorably on us. So
there's not a hard deadline but
there are deadlines that we've
committed to that we've not
foley kept up with so far. So
not hard deadlines. So >> when
you give me an example >> sorry
there are specific deadlines in
terms of months of when we
would make decisions in the
housing element under p 35 it
has a specific point and date I
believe 26th december of 2026
was when the first milestone is
technically >> we do have some
months. Yeah and then there's
october of 2026 was when we
were supposed to we're supposed
to have design standards
approved and under our current
timeline we're suggesting
december of 27 when we'd have
those approved. So we're
already a little bit behind and
so that's why you know,
continued to make progress is
important and have some
decisions made in terms of what
direction we're but in reality
we wouldn't be the only city
behind. There's plenty
of cities that aren't
necessarily in good standing
with hpd. So it's important as
chris was was mentioning is
that we continue to show
progress on those programs.
those are the types of things
that they are enforcing on in
terms of what commitments we
made in terms of decisions and
policy programs. You know, I
think where where there are
things outside of our control
with the actual housing
production under the arena
that's not necessarily where
they're choosing to enforce
because they understand that,
you know, those are things
outside of our control but
where we can implement programs
and are not making progress,
that's where we could really,
you know, run into an issue and
where they're really monitoring
us closely. Okay. >> so again,
I'd like to understand what our
neighboring cities are doing. I
understand berkeley is doing I
think it was 70 but what is
sunnyvale doing? What is
cupertino doing? What are
cities doing in santa clara
county? I mean the city of san
jose is not going to solve the
housing crisis for the county
or for northern california. So
and we shouldn't be expected to
do so. And so what are other
cities doing? Are other cities
are already taking these votes
on how dense or are we rushing?
we don't need to be the first
city to vote on this >>
. So >> I can't I don't I can't
speak to specific smaller
cities in santa clara county in
terms of this type of missing
middle programs. We'd have to
look at their housing elements
more closely. I know in terms
of the larger cities in the bay
area and elsewhere in the
state. These are programs that
are typical in their housing
elements. We were just talking
to oakland, the city of oakland
the other day and they also
have a similar program and are
currently working on general
plan updates and looking
at increased density in their
single-family so they're so
they're looking >> at it.
they're not voting on it yet.
how far away I mean that's what
I'm trying to understand are we
like the first city in
santa clara county doing this
or why can't we have a
conversation and stop and
realize, you know, actually
where we're at? So they'll be
bringing forward those changes
in the coming months to their
city council in months. Okay.
so then we are we are moving
at a faster rate. So how are we
more susceptible to being
referred other than we
got council members calling
oecd on us? Other than that,
how are we more susceptible >>
to hd and us being in
non-compliant? So in comparison
to these other municipalities
obviously you know wouldn't
want to speak too much for
oecd. But what I will say
council members is when you
take the statewide housing
element program, the vast
majority of units added through
all of the housing elements
reside in the largest cities in
the state. Right. And as such
we've seen, you know,
noncompliance letters or
actions taken against, you
know, san diego with their adu
law. You know, there's been
interventions around l.a on
some of their permitting
questions and their
applications. San francisco had
an unprecedented intervention
based on some of their
processes. So we do draw more
attention by nature that we are
the third largest city in the
state and we have you know a
considerable amount
of statewide capacity resides
in the big cities. >> what I
still would have liked to have
as we took this vote to get an
understanding of what our our
neighboring cities would have
done, I think that's important
for us as a council to do so
especially as we are thinking
about votes that may change the
essentially who our city is the
culture of our city. You know I
am a renter. I have lived in
apartments. You know, I know
what that's like. You know,
I've I grew up in a single
family home but in my district
people already living like
this. I want to be brutally
honest with everybody. I grew
up in a single family home.
there was three families that
lived there. And here's
san jose. We have no parking
because that's that's the
reality. So at the end of the
day the vote today doesn't
impact my district. I just want
to make sure that if we're
taking an important >> vote
like this, we're doing so with
all >> the information we need
and crossing our t's and dot in
our eyes and I just I feel like
we are rushing and I feel like
there's a there is a heightened
>> level of haziness that's
that's been pushed on this
council and I don't I don't
appreciate that I don't I don't
feel I feel like you know part
of this council is forcing the
other part of the council to
make this well thank you >>
okay let's let's keep going and
we will turn now to council
member committee. Thank you so
much. I want to thank all
of the people who came out to
give us your thoughts. We've
had a lot of emails, a lot
of information, a lot
of letters. There's been quite
a bit of engagement. So thank
you so much. I want to thank >>
the >> the department for all
of the work that you've done. I
especially want to thank jared
ferguson who you know we've
been sort of having him on
speed dial and director burton
as well, you know, in terms
of answering questions and
doing a lot of work on this. So
thank you very much. I want to
thank my colleagues. I think
you we all worked really hard
on our memos and tried to move
something that was manageable
and to move forward in our >>
process here now I want to talk
about a little bit on the you
know, what are we doing here
today >> and what it is and
what it isn't because I've
heard a lot of >> different
understandings of of what we
are today doing. We aren't
rezoning anything. We aren't
adopting any changes in the
general plan or making an
amendment. Nobody will be able
to leave here today or tomorrow
and apply for to build anything
under any of the land use
policies that we are discussing
so this is to >> give
direction. We're discussing the
parameters of future policy. So
this is part of a very long
process and there was a slide
today that shows where we are
in that process. You know it's
going to be for the adoption
and defining the outer
boundaries of environmental
study so that whatever >> the
whatever action the >> council
ultimately takes we have a
sufficient study of what those
impacts are. The environmental
impact is like tailoring a
garment. You could always
reduce it and remove fabric but
you can't add to it. Similarly
we can't enact regulations
which are whose impacts we
haven't studied >> so this will
give sort >> of the the
landscape of what the body
of study >> is going to be so
that when we do get the
information we will make an
informed decision on what those
impacts >> are. There will be
additional points in time for
the council and the public to
further define each of these
policies as we move forward to
eventually do a general plan
amendment at the end of 2020
for 27 excuse me and for the
adoption and implementation
of ordinances and policy. So
today is a very important day.
it's a very key check in
between the beginning of this
discussion and what >> will
happen locally in in in the
future. >> so you know, I
wanted to say a little bit
about the density bonus law and
I'm going to kind of simplify
>> the you know what we were
considering in point one on our
memo with council member toward
dios. What it really is is that
>> at this point in time an
applicant could get in some
of the larger lots up to five
units. Right. And if they have
these five units on an existing
parcel they could did restrict
one and use the state's density
bonus >> law to toss out all
of the height all of the
setback and other standards are
item number one really proposes
a pathway >> that should be
preferable to state law so that
we would have local control
right? So we want to make it
more desirable. So the idea is
really to explore >> our own
density bonus law instead
of having them trigger once you
get the five you know I mean we
had an example today of more
than five so you know, I think
that that is certainly worth
considering and I'm glad that
it was made a part of the >>
friendly amendment. I just
wanted to clarify >> to make
sure that councilmember cohen
you had added item number two
to develop written health and
safety standards on projects.
so >> that was that was
included. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
okay. Okay. I just wanted to
confirm that >> and explore.
yes, yes >> that's fine. That's
fine. And you know I do
appreciate that many of the
residents mentioned the
fundamental changes to the
quality of life of our american
dream >> and I understand that
you know, I too worked very,
very hard, struggled very, very
much to be able to afford a
single family home. I know how
it changes. It does change the
character >> but the the what
we're trying to do today is
really to study what is going
to happen >> in those areas. So
I look forward to the resulting
information that will come to
us and look forward to being
able to continue the
conversation. Thanks
councilmember. Maybe just to
quickly combine the points from
councilmembers ortiz and
committee back to back there in
order to not rush to
prematurely close the door and
limit our optionality as
councilmember ortiz conveyed I
think councilor akamai's point
that we're setting a direction
for staff study is important. I
think councilor candles and
others have all pointed to
this. I think the question
right now that we have to
settle on today is what's
within the scope of what staff
is going to go study. It's not
a final decision but leaving it
out tonight basically precludes
us. It's not guaranteed we
could all decide to pull the
handbrake and add something in
but it gets a lot harder to add
new concepts later and it's not
fair to staff and it puts us
off track. So tonight is a
night to be and that's why I
appreciate we've got three
different memos, a lot
of different recs. I think
councilor condon an admirable
job of trying to put as many
pieces in we're not done. I
still see a lot of hands but
lest anyone think that we are
rushing to a conclusion I would
say read the memos from all the
council members which are
adding a lot of scope to what
staff is studying for the very
point that we don't want to
settle or or zero in today on
one answer we're giving a lot
of optionality and a range
intentionally here and there
may be more added as we go on
though I know we have some
limits to chris's team's
capacity. All right. Let
me turn now to
councilmember campos. Thank
you, mayor. I want to begin by
appreciating the members of our
community who have participated
in the general plan review
process for the past year for
those who have shared their
diverse opinions here today, I
thank you. I am also grateful
to the planning commissioners
who have spent many hours
during the general plan task
force meetings listening
carefully to public input and
putting together thoughtful
recommendations for council and
of course I want to thank
planning staff for their
significant and difficult work
to help the city meet the
housing needs of our community
and comply with complex and
challenging state mandates.
finally, I want to thank
my colleagues in the general
plan brown act group that I've
been working with and in the
spirit of compromise we have
prepared prudent
recommendations which I'll
speak to briefly. None of us on
council are oblivious to the
public comments that we've
received in our inbox that
we've heard tonight. Nor are we
ignorant about the housing
crisis and its impacts on
hundreds of thousands of our
neighbors. But the hard truth
is that our obligation to
comply with state law is real.
and as we've heard there are
severe consequences if we do
not make that good faith effort
to meet state mandates. Each
side has provided clear
guidance to our staff about
their expectations around the
housing element and if we do
not implement housing element
program p 35 which allows small
multifamily housing citywide
and if our housing element is
decertified we risk loss
of local control in return
of the builders remedy and loss
of eligibility for hundreds
of millions of dollars in state
grants for transportation
infrastructure and affordable
housing. But that's not the
only reason that we on council
have to make these tough
decisions. And I want to share
a personal story of an
experience that I had yesterday
that left me reflecting on the
vote before us today because
yesterday at southside
community center we hosted a
wildfire wildfire preparedness
town hall and on my way in I
noticed a young man who was
arriving with a suitcase but
instead of walking inside the
building he stayed outside
sitting on a bench in our past.
and as I walked back to my car
I noticed he was still sitting
on that bench. I went home and
I continued thinking about this
person who was about my age who
had no safe home to spend their
night who most likely spent the
evening outside because that's
the reality that we are facing
where too many older adults are
families with children and
youth aging out of foster >>
care are at risk
of homelessness in our city or
they're already experiencing
this and as a city as a
council. But most importantly
as a community I hope that we
can reset our north star and
framing for this general plan
conversation because we have
not built enough housing for
decades costs have increased so
much that the cost that most
of the housing in san jose is
not affordable to hundreds
of thousands of people who
struggle every single day to
make rent or people like me who
feel like they will never be
able to buy a house in their
hometown. I'm 32 and I live
at home with my parents. This
is why I'm proud to have worked
with my colleagues to find ways
to provide more affordable and
accessible housing in
my district district to the
southside community center is
what I want to speak to as an
opportunity for us to explore
public private partnership that
would bring new housing
including affordable homes
along with a new community
center by proactively amending
the general plan, the city can
subsequently go through an
extensive public process to
identify a development partner,
design a new community center
and public amenities and
provide much needed community
facilities and housing. And as
the property owner the city
would retain all land use and
planning discretion on the
southside community center
piece that is included on the
motion on the floor council
members command tordillos
remind us in their memo that
this action today is not the
final approval of any changes.
it is the framework for
necessary environmental review
and there will be many more
opportunities as we've heard
for the community to provide
input on development standards
and implementation. So I look
forward to supporting the
motion and continuing the
conversation over the next
year. Thank you, council
members. Let me turn now to
vice mayor. Thank you. I was
debating whether to say
anything because it's been said
by many of my colleagues and
much more eloquently than I can
say it. But first I want to
thank the staff for their
presentation and and
particularly ruth and jared for
presenting at the joint town
hall we had with the two and
ten last was it last week but
but thank you for that. I did
sit in on the final planning
commission meeting where the
planning commission voted to
move this forward and I found
it a very interesting but
confusing and complicated
conversation. This is not an
easy topic and I come from a
real estate world so to to
go through all of the
recommendations to listen to
the planning commission and I
know there are some planning
commissioners in the room thank
you so much for your time on
the task force and then as a
planning commissioner as well.
I really appreciate that this
is really difficult. Thank >>
you to also for all the public
comments both emails that I
received over the last couple
of weeks and today and while >>
I didn't respond to everybody I
did listen and read all of them
because I wanted to see where
you were coming from and
frankly I live one 2 in 1
of those neighborhoods that is
going to be quote unquote up
zoned and that's of concern to
me because I'm going to have to
look at my neighbors after we
vote on after we approve
density and they're going to be
really disappointed at me on
how I make a vote, how I vote.
I also want to say that this is
the last time I will be voting
on the general plan when this
comes to us them in december
of 2027 I won't be here I term
out at the end of december and
so this decision that they will
be making I may be standing in
the audience coming in and
saying you're ruining
my neighborhood. I don't know.
but we'll see. We'll see. I
want to challenge you all to
continue. The engagement so far
has been really important and
and I want to challenge you to
continue to be involved,
continue to pay attention to
the issue as it goes forward
because as it's been explained,
this is the starting point.
this isn't the end. We are
giving direction for staff to
look at a variety of densities
but no decision is being made.
the decision on design
standards three storeys high
I've heard a lot of comments
about three storey high no
parking that was really
important that for me that we
added in the parking because I
was on council when we removed
parking a minimum parking as a
requirement we thought it would
rightsize itself and it did and
it didn't. But in the
neighborhoods we I really felt
we needed to bring back the
minimum requirements and staff
will take a look at that and
bring it in but your input is
really important from from all
sides because truthfully all
count all of us up here have
listened to what you have to
say to my council members
candela and ortiz >> I hear
your frustration and I don't
disagree with it. This feels
that it's a this is a very
complicated decision with a lot
of repercussions but you will
have a year plus to still craft
it and come back with the right
the right thing for the city
of san jose and for your
communities. I know there's
some pressure to to create a
boundary with vehicle miles
traveled and a barrier where
development won't occur. I
would caution you not to that
feels a little bit like
redlining to me and in the old
days redlining was bad. So
where you draw a circle around
an area in a city and said
we're not going to get people
who live in that so that area
housing and so I would just
caution you as you're thinking
about that think about the
unintended consequences and how
that's going to play out with
the greater the greater
community. And I realize I'm
lecturing but this is the last
time I get to lecture and
that's just the way it's going
to be right now. So again, stay
please community stay engaged.
this is it's important that we
truly >> preserve the the
character of our of our
neighborhoods too because
you're living you're buying or
you're renting in our
communities. You're sending
your kids to schools in those
communities for a reason
because you feel connected to
it. You feel safe there. Your
family may be there. So we need
to make sure that we protect
the dynamic and the the the
feelings of the communities and
that doesn't mean I'm against
density or development
development is really
important. We actually
absolutely must build but we
haven't seen the effects of sb
79 yet and we have a lot
of vacant schools that could be
in that pathway of development
for sb 79 where we're going to
get some high rises and we
won't even have an authority or
an ability to do anything about
it. I'm concerned about that
because I had a couple
of schools close in my district
I would to staff when you come
back with the design and
guidelines and future memos
could you please use language
that I or a fifth grader could
understand? It would really be
helpful for me to be able to
explain it to others. I think a
school board member actually
mentioned that and she's she's
right. The the the simpler you
make it for us the easier it
is. I think that is about it
but council member cohen I have
a question for you regarding
the south side or actually
staff you mentioned something
about the fire station being
retained as pickup. So do we
need to clued that in the >>
motion that the fire station be
retained in pcb? >> yes. Okay
then councilmember cohen, will
you include that? Yeah, I did
ask and I got the answer before
that we didn't have to that
they would understand that. But
if if it makes it clear we'll
go ahead and just use that in
the motion. Okay. With that, I
know we're going to hear from
councilmember mulcahy and thank
you for negotiating all of the
issues in your area which
frankly I haven't paid much
attention to because it's your
council district >> but that's
that I think what you've heard
is the council really does
listen to what you have to say.
we're concerned about
development and yeah and a
carte >> blanche change of >>
zoning from residential to
higher density across the city
there is a place for
development. It's not a place
in all of our neighborhoods
just to have a citywide zoning
change with that thank you,
mayor. Thanks, vice mayor.
appreciate your reflections.
let's turn now to
councilmember mckay. >> thank
you, mayor. Vice mayor paul,
you can add me to the same list
as ortiz and candela has been
frustrated with things and we
were in the same brown act
together. Who knew? So I want
to thank the city staff. You
guys have a very difficult job
balancing not only all the
public comment and how to
process that but certainly the
11 of us and all of our team.
so thank you for hanging in
there >> and and I you know, I
want to recognize the planning
commissioners who sat as the
four year review board and all
the neighbors who've taken time
to engage today tonight and all
the weeks leading up to this
meeting. So I want to start
with the items in district six
because district six is out
of the entire review process
leading up to this session is
the only district where there
were targeted changes made
specifically for the
opportunity for >> additional
residential capacity city and
this included both the alameda
and winchester boulevard. So I
want to talk about winchester
for a moment. This has been on
our agenda a lot over the last
year and I don't think that
there's a more involved
neighborhood than the cary
neighborhood in this and I just
want to paint a little picture.
this >> is not you know, your
single family neighborhood, you
know, not wanting encroachment
into it. This is a neighborhood
that sits directly astride the
valley fair mall which as we
know is our biggest mall, one
of the top producers in the
world price per foot and they
have growth capacity that
remains. They also have santana
row just adjacent to that. >>
so this is not just a
neighborhood that is pushing
back on high rise. Rasi this is
one that is already dealing
with real everyday issues. No
valley fare now charges for
parking. So this is these are
real issues for this community
and I want to make sure that
we're not just thinking about
that little burb, you know, and
just kind of pushing off
housing. This is an affected
impacted neighborhood. So we've
heard from our neighbors from
san jose or from city of santa
clara too. That's right across
the street of winchester. And
you know, we've heard from
their council member and mayor
have weighed in on their
concerns on this. It's worth
noting too that the planning
commission took five votes
specifically on trying to piece
together something for the
winchester corridor and
couldn't come to an agreement
on it. And it's late and
at first when I heard it I
thought it was distasteful. Now
I'm laughing about it but I
think he meant it tongue in
cheek. But after the last
meeting the planning and the
chair of the planning
commission said I think the
staff give council member
mulcahy our love knowing that
we were going to have this
difficult challenge to deal
with. >> so which is why I'm
proud to bring forward a
compromise proposal that gets
us residential development and
at the same time protects
neighborhoods serving retail
that is sort of from the
heading corner of winchester
down to forest which is
essentially the the you know,
the door of valley fair. So as
we work our way from heading on
the north we've got some
residential opportunities as we
work our way down to existing
commercial you know active
successful retail now that
serves that community. So
that's really what we're trying
to accomplish and I would
really appreciate you
considering a friendly
amendment to your motion that's
on the floor >> and your
request is to include the your
entire recommendation >> would
be one c on the domingo candela
mulcahy or t's memo. Okay I
mean I my preference was to
defer to the work you had done
in the community but I just I
wanted I had I had heard staff
with a little bit of concern
about the appropriate densities
and so can you I'll just ask
chris one more time and then
I'll >> yeah, happy to talk to
it. I think you know, I do
really appreciate
councilmember mckay's approach
in trying to sort of be
thoughtful about how to
approach this very specific
part of the recommendation. I
think you know, initially staff
had been looking this following
the proposal for the 17 storey
development on the particular
site and trying to find an
appropriate compromise in the
conversation at that time was
this is a you know, fairly
significant thoroughfare, you
know on the approach to valley
fair and santana row there's an
opportunity here to see
redevelopment for housing now
the way that we've considered
conversion of commercial sites
throughout the city which is
different to sort of how we're
talking about kind of other
density conversations in this
recommendation is typically in
the past we've pushed for
higher densities on commercial
sites and part of the reason
for that there's a couple
of tradeoffs and one, you know,
we're trying to create
opportunity for balanced growth
throughout san jose that
provides the sort of services,
amenities and retail
opportunities to support our
residents and when we convert
that it comes at a cost both
sort of amenities and services
cost as well as an actual
fiscal cost to the city. It was
mentioned earlier by a
councilmember committee about
sort of density levels and the
fiscal impact of land use. And
so typically we're always
looking at pushing those
densities on commercial
conversions and I think that's
part of our hesitation when we
think about the sort of long
range approach is that if we're
going to come down on that
density into those lower ranges
you know should we just leave
it as commercial and just sort
of wait for the long term
opportunity? Now the tradeoff
is that, you know, there is a
near-term opportunity to see
redevelopment and create
opportunity for housing units.
so I get I mean that's that's
really the sort of policy
consideration for council to
kind of give us the direction
>> and I >> would say and add
to that that there are two
of these properties that we're
really encouraging you know
what we're what we're placing
at it now encourages
development. Now there are two
blighted sites that have been
just sitting there and so they
are you know, challenges for
the neighborhoods as well.
okay. I mean I don't I guess I
don't hear I think we're
applying this is applied to
such a small set of properties
that it's you know while it's
my go against some of the
instincts that I have and the
staff has about density, you
know, given the work that
you've done, I'm I'm okay with
accepting it as a friendly
amendment on the motion >> to
approve the second >> great
thank you very much. So I do
want to talk about a couple
of other things I think it's
important to highlight west
san carlos this is item one d
which has already been picked
up but I just wanted to sort
of highlight it so I'm
supportive of staff's effort to
evaluate how mixed use
commercial designations
throughout the city are working
where they may not be and
identifying options for future
uses. And while conversion to
commercial may make sense in
some areas the west san carlos
corridor is well positioned to
pursue more new residential
development. Right now we have
1500 units recently delivered
under construction and or
submitted when we lost the
corner. If you remember last
year race in west san carlos to
a new chick-fil-a. I made a
commitment to those against
that used to identify more
residential opportunities. This
is part of that. The corridor
is in transition despite the
new construction which is sort
of more down towards downtown
san carlos is countless aging,
vacant and blighted buildings.
it is littered with unwanted
commercial activities and
code violations and has the
third highest concentration
of graffiti among major
corridors in the entire city
exploring the conversion
of some of the remaining mixed
use commercial sites to
residential would align with
our goals of creating
additional residential capacity
in our urban villages and along
our major boulevards. And I
want to thank
councilmember cohen for pulling
that into the motion. So on
residential density, I'm still
really, really having a
difficult time reconciling the
rationale or defense of the
proposed increase from 8 to 32
dwelling units per acre
effectively going from 1 to 4
units on a lot in a blanket
approach over the entire city.
I think that's sort of been the
common theme the blanket
approach doesn't even account
for 80 use generate used state
density bonus or the 450
something state laws around
housing and I think with those
80 use junior ideas I mean does
I think that math can get us up
to 32 units per acre in
practice >> so much of the
disagreement and certainly I
think why our brown act
couldn't come together with
five signatures is really on
this very item stems from the
variety of interpretations and
I know I'm treading on comments
from earlier but from each
code and my read is that our
commitment was to evaluate
opportunities for 210 housing
and locations throughout the
city including areas adjacent
to urban villages and
residential areas along major
streets. The intent was to
support missing middle housing
near urban villages, create and
transition between our
residential neighborhoods and
major thoroughfares. I don't
believe the commitment was
intended to require a one size
fits all approach. If it was,
why even call out urban
villages >> and major streets
to begin with? Couldn't the
phrase throughout the city just
as likely refer to being
equitable making sure we get
density across the city and not
unfairly consecrate
concentrated? I'd have expected
an approach that placed value
on the uniqueness and diversity
of our neighborhoods as well as
differences in access to
reliable transit and major
roadways. We should concentrate
more densely around urban
villages and apply more modest
increases in primarily
residential neighborhoods. We
should be more meticulous
considering all the variables
>> and the realities on the
ground. In my view this is a
more thoughtful and responsible
way to approach city planning.
this would allow us to create
the residential capacity we
need while recognizing that not
every lot and every
neighborhood is the same and
even consider for such an
important decision we must have
greater clarity on the
framework of our decision.
while my colleagues and I in
our memo pointed to our support
of the mayor, vice mayor and
and the others memo regarding
you know to environmentally
clear a range of options it
still gives me pause because
of the range of interpretations
of p 35 the city's promise to
cd and I'll just finish here >>
we can't make decisions >>
based on threats from a state
agency that has not yet given
us an answer. Well, some of us
an answer will actually be
acceptable to me. We have no
real opinion from our city
attorney speculation run by
city staff has created rumor
and innuendo and people around
this building have been playing
land use attorney for the last
couple of weeks that kind
of guns lightning only gets us
in trouble. There's just too
much at stake. I don't I went
last hoping that there would be
a magic answer to where we
go here and I appreciate all
of my colleagues, you know,
suggesting that this is only
the beginning of this
conversation and I just really
hope that we get the
information we need. The
community gets the information
it deserves and we can come to
a solution on this in december
of 27. Thank you. Thanks,
councilmember. Appreciate your
>> comments. It may give you
some solace that were we to
come back and ultimately agree
not I'm sure not ruling would
like this but were we to
go with 16 plus use and not
allow for the combination
of lots you would effectively
be defaulting test benign which
is what we have today so it
does preserve a range that
allows a status quo approach
but other options as well. Let
me turn to council. It could >>
first you know, I appreciate
everybody, you know, chiming in
and given their perspective
it's it's appreciated and >>
ditto councilmember mulcahy on
your talking points and you
know we talked a lot as we were
coming up with our our group
memos and you know, mayor, to
your point earlier about now
being the opportunity for for
input and it being critical to
offering the guidance to staff
in order to see a program that
best addresses the concerns
that we've we've outlined. And
with that I'd like to offer a
friendly amendment to the
motion and shout out to the
city attorney's office for
helping our office craft this
language with regards to the
environmental review and in
your all in your your memo with
amend and replace its one be
amend and replace e one to
direct staff to environmental
review increasing the densities
from 1624 and 32 and return to
the council with these options
etc. Etc. I'd like to be
specific in exploring it as
part of this environmental
review to study and explore
guardrails for high vmt areas
including ingress, egress,
public safety impacts to
emergency response times
associated with police and fire
public transit options as it
relates to mobility, parking
minimums and development design
standards. And this is all
language that I've ran through
the city attorney's office that
would help us get an extra you
know, review as part of the
environmental >> process that
they're going to be engaging in
to be able to flesh that out
given the impact to these
areas. And I would I would hope
you would accept this as a as a
as a friendly yeah. I >> mean I
think it makes sense. I will
tell you and I have mahan up
because I just wanted to say
some things that that have been
triggered by this conversation
since I went first and I and I
>> wanted to go I wanted to
go in front of you on purpose.
no, no, no. I wanted to but I'm
just I'm just saying that I
because I have some of the same
concerns that >> you have that
led you to your to your >>
memo. It's not like I didn't I
mean so so I appreciate that
there's a way to study these
impacts without at upfront
eliminating them from the where
we can make changes. I think
that was the point it was and
so I was actually going to ask
in my comments if there was a
way to be more granular. So I
appreciate what you're >>
recommending. Yeah sorry said
okay with the second okay
great. And you will you've
got that language clear the
city attorney and will share
with the clerk thanks
councilmember okay did you have
more was that that was that
concluded your remarks? Thank
you. Let me go to
councilmember casey. Well I'll
be brief. Mulcahy and domingos
stole a lot of my thunder. I
appreciate councilmember cohen
for incorporating the vmt
language. I know even in our
brown act >> we had had
conversations about that. The
challenge for me is I'm nearing
half a century in my district
and I remember looking over
my backyard and seeing orchards
and now it's a housing track so
I understand change is
inevitable. My concern is that
we're not doing this in a
thoughtful way and I think
mulcahy >> had mentioned that.
I think we're in a negotiation
with hpd and I don't think it's
appropriate for us to just
yield to their authority and do
what essentially negotiate
against ourselves. So I'm
supportive of us aggressively
negotiating for >> the lowest
density in areas where it
doesn't >> make sense. I ran on
density where it makes sense in
downtown and in transportation
corridors density does not make
sense in d-10 so ultimately I'm
open to our memos but when the
rubber hits the road I will not
support density >> in d-10
thank you. Thanks
councilmember. Let me go back
to sue. Let me go did I just
put >> my light on because I
assumed you're saying my name
so yes I'll circle the system
doesn't anyway, thank you. I
just want to start by just
saying look many of us in this
city are lucky in terms of the
timing of when we were able to
buy homes in our city. I just
tell the story I bought my home
27 years ago. I was just I mean
I was young, I was in my 20s. I
was able to buy a home in
my 20s. That home as my value
has appreciated by a factor
of six over 27 years now is
that an expectation that that
should happen? I don't believe
so and I will say that I
sometimes feel sheepish about
this whole thing that people
now can't do what I did right
and am I willing to say that
that some things that we do in
our neighborhood will allow
will force my home value to
depreciate a little bit so that
others will have more
opportunity? I think that's
reasonable. I've I've gained
and I've been and I've been
able to benefit from this
community and the and the and
the problems that we're trying
to deal with as a community. So
I'm just going to say that up
front I think it's important to
point that out and just say it
pains me that others can't have
what I have and that and we're
fortunate to do what I did
at the time that I was able to
do it. But a lot of things can
be true at once. One size fits
all is not always the best but
we >> shouldn't say that there
are areas of the city where we
can't provide opportunity for
people to be able to live there
. The whole idea of this
of this policy is that >> we
should be offering opportunity
for people to find places
anywhere in the city if they
want a certain school district,
if they want certain services
we provide opportunity and so
both those things are sort
of counter to each other. One
size fits all is not always the
best but we also can't paint
the broad brush of of saying
certain areas are going to be
off limits and I appreciate the
comments that vice mayor made
about if you do that you're
you're kind of keeping in place
policies that have gotten us
into this problem in the first
place. Character of cities and
neighborhoods necessarily
changes over time, right? I
mean we the fact that this was
the way it was 40 years ago
when people bought their homes
doesn't mean it's the way it's
going to be now as
councilmember casey just
pointed out. Right. I mean
there were orchards and there's
homes now there's going to be
some density >> and things are
changing and we should be able
to work work on that. But one
of the things that been
occurring to me during this
conversation is you know, I've
been pushing back on the one
size fits all from a state
standpoint from our state
legislators this idea that
every city should have this
should have the same set
of rules >> we you know, we
shouldn't necessarily accept
that one size can fit all in
our city and I and it's
difficult to ask how can we be
more granular in this decision
making and I agree with
councilmember ken jealous and
your basic premise that we
should be more granular. I
don't necessarily agree that
that that the vmt was the right
approach because it basically
shuts down huge swaths of our
city from having the
opportunity that's that's the
challenge here and I just
wanted to say that so I mean
it's a challenge then put on
the planning department >>
going forward to think about
this granularity what makes
sense? How can we be more
focused without shutting it
down anywhere? I don't know the
answer to that. But >> you
know, even when we study 1632,
16, 2432 are there some places
where 16 makes sense in some
places where 32 makes sense. I
know it's a lot of work to sort
of decide neighborhood by
neighborhood what makes sense
but I just we shouldn't
necessarily be shutting off
that conversation. I think I do
appreciate the memo from
today's committee and I when I
read it I thought this
sounds like a good idea but I
just needed a little more
explanation on it. >> the idea
that we can bring back some
local control over design
standards and what gets built
is important and I will say
this is a big fight across the
state. I'm I am the chair
of the resolutions committee
for the league of the cities
of the state of california.
this >> september >> at our
conference there is a
resolution being brought
forward >> to the general
assembly >> of the league that
I will be evaluating as chair
as part of that committee will
be evaluating asking for a
working group to figure out how
to put how to develop a
potential state constitutional
amendment to bring back local
control of land use for cities
because this is the push that
cities are are pushing back on
the state. This conversation is
going >> to be had at the state
level so this is not easy and I
and you know I do you know
while I appreciate some of the
intent of some of the state
laws, they have continued to
pile on and pile on and it's
made it our lives difficult. So
I just want to say, you know, I
made a motion I support some
of the underlying ideas here
but it was never totally
comfortable to me that we were
doing this broad brush. I just
wanted to say that here and
sort of leave that out there as
a thought as we move forward in
the next 16 months before it
comes back to council. Thank
you. Great. Thanks
councilmember. I appreciate
that and all the friendly
amendments that you accepted
along with the vice mayor
councilor casey. Yes. Sorry for
extending conversation. I just
want to push back a bit on this
notion that density anywhere
at least to affordability I
don't know that that
necessarily bears out in
reality. I >> think david
noelle has a good point in
terms of condo defect if we
build a torn of condos, smaller
units you know affordable by
design that will lead to
affordability. But a multi-unit
in los gatos for example is
still very expensive. A
multi-unit in almaden is still
going to be very expensive.
it's not going to be
affordable. So I just want to
push back on this idea that
density naturally be used to
affordability because I don't
think that's necessarily true.
all right. And and I suspect
this is going to be a very
engaging ongoing conversation
for this council over the
coming years. But let me turn
now to councilmember tordillos
>> and I would push back
against that notion. You know
the city has actually looked
at this. They did a feasibility
study on missing rental housing
in 2021 and across the board
they found that 4 to 8 unit
projects would be cheaper than
the lower density projects that
they studied. This can also be
seen in data on actual missing
little programs that have been
developed in other cities.
there have been studies of 4000
missing middle homes built in
seattle over the past 20 years
and they consistently showed
that higher density projects
had lower prices been lower
density projects. Oh boy. Here
we go. All right. We only do a
study session on this specific
topic, councilor. Okay. >> so
as you need to do in every
debate is define the terms. So
a blanket statement of more
density leads to cheaper
development. That's just not
true. Are you talking about 100
unit density versus a duplex? I
don't know that that actually
bears out so I would push back.
I think that's a gut feeling.
I'd look at this study and I
assure you that there's issues
with it. There's no way you can
tell me you look at vancouver,
you look at like I mentioned
los gatos, you look at hong
kong international cities, the
demand >> for housing in
certain areas is so high and
it's supply and demand I get
it. But there's enough of the
demand where we we can't
outstrip the demand with the
supply at the moment in certain
areas in san jose in
particular. So I push back on
your push back. All right. I
think at that point we're going
to pause and take a vote. Thank
you all. It's a great
discussion. I appreciate all
the really thoughtful memos and
recommendations. Ions thank
you, councilor cohen, for
managing the motion there >>
and staff thank >> you for all
of your work and thank you the
members of the committee you
hung in there all the way. So
what time >> is it? We're
at 1030. Impressive. Thank you.
I appreciate it, toni. Let's
vote
. I, I still have one >> got to
hold out. Okay. Keep motion
passes 8 to 3 with dawn kendall
and casey voting no. >> all
right. Okay, we are thank you
all. We are >> on to open forum
>> and this is an opportunity
for members of the public to
comment on city business that
was not on today's agenda >>
2012 credit cards. Okay. I have
>> ernestina if you're still
here brady how will rich ted
scarlett and I don't know this
the pine on lou cassie I don't
know what that means but those
are the ones I have in person.
if nobody is coming down I'm
going to go ahead and go to
brian followed by blair online
. Can you hear me okay? Yes, I
just I watch the whole thing.
I'm really glad that we do this
because I was able to
go through about 500 coins and
do my laundry and listen to but
I have to say this and all
of you worked very hard. I mean
I have agreed with everything
but I have to take back what
I've said a couple of times
where nobody reads emails that
I have been wrong about that
and proven wrong today on
several occasions and I
apologize for that. Thank you
and have a good evening. Thank
you. Blair remember these are
for topics not on the agenda,
>> right? Blair beakman hi. I
got quite a learning lesson
today. Thank you. I hopefully I
can talk about it. Wilson open
government tomorrow I thanks
that you have zoom >> available
again by the way I >> it's
important to the city
of oakland is there developing
a full community process to
address the future of how to
leave block that they can look
for another aop vendor as a
full community process they're
taking you know another 12 to
16 months to do that that
they've already started I think
san jose and san diego
definitely can be doing the
same sort of things >> you guys
kind of oh it you obviously put
in way too much surveillance
tech under the carter
administration. I hope you
learned an important lessons
that minimal amounts of tech
can do the same amount
of public safety work and those
are important lessons to learn.
good luck on leaving flock and
finding a new way. Hope your
vendor that we practice pete >>
rich see yeah I'm here. Are you
able to hear me? Yes. So this
is in regards to stinky new
food trucks. >> oh okay. Yeah.
so we're I don't know why it's
echoing but anyways we are here
about talking about your you're
moving every 15 minutes. Are >>
you done? No. So you guys have
a lot of that that we have to
move our food truck every 15
minutes and that's it's pretty
much impossible because we have
it takes 15 minutes just to get
the food truck >> started and
yes so that's what we're here
for. Okay thank >> you colin
user to start six to unmute hi
I like to address the situation
at the corner of speak in
lucchese there's been a pile
of debris that is impeding
traffic. I have contacted the
city numerous times and
contacted the vice mayor
numerous times and her staff
and this pile just keeps
growing bigger and bigger with
more trash and it needs to be
removed just in a red zone.
it's actually an emergency zone
for emergency vehicles and
painted red and there's no
reason that it can't be
removed. I realize they may
pile stuff back after is
removed but it shouldn't stay
there till it's dried out as a
fire hazard. It needs to be
moved and it cause it's almost
caused me to rear end people
because when they go to make a
right hand turn they break
because there's debris in the
way. It shouldn't be that way
and there's no way it should
take this long to have it
removed. I've called d o t I've
called tampa office and no one
is. Thank you, sheila. I I >>
own property on medgar avenue
in san jose and at the corner
of medgar and the entrance to
the 280 freeway is a huge
parking lot that would be
perfect for another cerato huge
building and I don't understand
why there's nothing being done
about it. It's empty and that's
a perfect space for advancing
the goal of affordable housing.
I mean it's got to be
affordable almost. Garris
whatever your bills I agree so
I mean I don't know who is I
don't know whose district
that's in I, I don't know but
what I do know is that
particular corner is open
whether it's owned by the
church or whether it's I don't
know but I'm going to ask every
person who knows about medgar
and the entrance to the 280
freeway to invest. I gave that
as a reason. Thank >> you,
milo. Hi. So I have a thought
experiment. I think it might
illuminate the conversation
tonight. Imagine you have two
really nice toys lego toys the
right next to each other. They
happen to be in los gatos. One
of the toys is made of what two
pieces you knock it down and
with the pieces you build for
smaller toys >> you think each
one of these toys they're still
really nice. We still
got those. Do you think each
one of these four smaller toys
is going to sell for the same
amount as the one really nice
toy right next to it that
wasn't knocked to pieces? This
sounds like it's on >> the same
topic we already talked about
last night earlier this doesn't
sound like a new topic price
hello. This is priced >>
at eight. >> okay. Okay so
my name is bryce. I own and
operate a gourmet mobile food
truck together with my mother.
the current rule that states a
food truck must move every 15
minutes does not match with
reality. It takes 20 minutes to
get set up to perform duties.
I'm asking council to delete or
>> amend this rule so I may
continue to perform my duties
and support my family. I have
received countless citations
and infractions which truly
boggles my mind because I am an
active member in my community
who works with many youth
groups, churches and
nonprofits. And I'm just asking
that we can either revise the
rules that have to do with
mobile vending. I'm willing to
come back next tuesday and as
long as it takes because you
know, we pay all of our fees.
we have every permit possible.
and I just I love stand part
of the community and I want to
continue. Thank you. >> thank
you. Back to council. I need
somebody to adjourn. >> all
right. Thanks, everybody. We're
adjourned. Have a great night
>>
. >>