[0:09] That. All >> right. Good
[0:14] afternoon, everyone. Welcome to
[0:16] your city hall. I'd like to
[0:17] call to order this meeting
[0:18] of the salzer city council for
[0:20] the afternoon of august 18th.
[0:22] toni, would you please call the
[0:23] roll to me here, compose
[0:25] present today's here to win
[0:28] ortiz present mulcahy >> here.
[0:30] don kendall is here. Casey
[0:33] foley mehan >> here you have a
[0:36] quorum. Thank you. All right.
[0:37] now if you're able please stand
[0:38] and join us in the pledge
[0:40] of allegiance. I pledge
[0:45] allegiance to the flag >>
[0:47] of the united states of america
[0:49] and to the republic for which
[0:51] it stands one nation under god,
[0:54] indivisible, with liberty and
[0:56] justice for all. >> thank you
[1:03] and welcome once again. Today's
[1:05] invocation will be provided by
[1:07] ten fong taekwondo institute
[1:10] council member twan please tell
[1:11] us more. >> thank you very
[1:14] much, mayor. Good afternoon
[1:16] everyone. Today my office is
[1:19] pleased to present our >>
[1:20] second invocation of the month.
[1:21] we are especially honored to
[1:24] have a special performance >>
[1:26] prepared for us today thanks to
[1:28] tun fong and his taekwondo
[1:30] group. Taekwondo is a martial
[1:32] art that emphasized discipline,
[1:34] respect, perseverance and
[1:36] self-control beyond impressive
[1:39] techniques and physical skill.
[1:41] it teaches us the >> importance
[1:43] of focus, confidence and value
[1:46] that can inspire >> all of us
[1:48] in our daily lives. And
[1:50] of course >> we are very
[1:52] grateful they are here to
[1:53] demonstrate this skill to us
[1:55] today. I think it is safe to
[1:58] say that after watching this
[2:00] performance none of us will be
[2:02] volunteering to test their
[2:04] kicks. With that please join >>
[2:07] me in giving a warm welcome to
[2:09] ten fong and his taekwondo
[2:11] group >>
[3:07] . Take one look. Thank you
[3:18] both. >> I am the fastest way
[3:28] this race
[3:43] is to be awarded for the five.
[3:51] oh, my god. >> oh. Oh! Oh oh
[4:01] oh. 000. Oh. Oh oh. Oh. Oh. Oh
[4:25] yeah. >> oh oh. So. So far. So
[4:45] far. All right. Glad you're
[4:49] back on >> the official place.
[4:53] I've got to go back. >> thank
[5:01] you so. We start we started
[5:07] when you start to get started
[5:11] >> up on a bit out, right?
[5:13] yeah. We're going to be get a
[5:17] lot out natalie >> okay, now
[5:38] okay. Just >> gonna have fun.
[5:52] wow. Got nothing to come by but
[5:56] I think it's fun to be up loud
[6:02] oh yeah yeah okay yeah >> yeah
[6:10] oh yeah. Okay. So what what is
[6:21] it >> like what? Soccer got?
[6:31] let's go first. Is that what I
[6:33] talked about? Think back and
[6:36] come back and get back to the
[6:39] back but ready? Yeah. Get
[6:46] ready. Ready. Why don't you go?
[6:48] I don't know. Maybe. Yeah.
[6:53] ready to go? I think >> that
[6:59] this and >> like yeah, >> yeah.
[7:17] marvin >> come up and >> block
[7:27] up yeah of yeah that's just
[7:37] like that but this way just
[7:43] come back out now okay >>
[8:00] . It could be fun but I set >>
[8:06] you up. Yeah. Okay on it. Fun
[8:16] >> that I kind of like it. Yes,
[8:22] please. Yeah, yeah >>
[8:44] . But in front of I don't know
[8:52] which like that I mean it
[8:57] actually plaza yeah I have been
[9:02] out and you have to measure
[9:06] yeah it's good to have you have
[9:07] to tell us where I go very very
[9:12] fancy that's it but but but
[9:19] very close and yet like yeah >>
[9:31] that's what >> we we we >> like
[9:42] >> working now >>
[10:03] . Yeah so now let's know if
[10:12] that's your plan. Yeah. How you
[10:26] cook it right I mean you you
[10:33] now with left. Yeah >> like I'm
[10:54] lena
[11:06] yeah I'm 5000 yeah >>
[11:35] back and be like I through oh
[11:53] okay yeah >> yeah yeah
[12:24] okay and yeah yeah
[12:42] yeah so so yeah >>
[12:59] I'm not only the about >> the
[13:16] no but look there's not look >>
[13:23] okay >> thank you all very much
[13:32] again that was tom fong
[13:35] taekwondo institute thank you
[13:37] again council member dawn for
[13:38] arranging today's invocation.
[13:40] we'll do our ceremonial items.
[13:42] vice mayor foley, if you would
[13:43] join me at the podium we will
[13:44] recognize the bay area women's
[13:47] sports initiative also known as
[13:48] bossy >>
[14:14] . >> good afternoon. Today I'm
[14:17] >> here to recognize the bay
[14:18] area women's sports initiative
[14:21] for their continued success in
[14:22] advancing youth recreation.
[14:25] founded in 2005 bossy and you
[14:28] gotta love that acronym, don't
[14:30] you? >> women are bossy but
[14:34] they're also in control. >> is
[14:36] a nonprofit. Bossy >> is a
[14:38] nonprofit organization rooted
[14:40] in the belief that the women's
[14:41] sports community holds the
[14:43] power to engage, inspire and
[14:45] empower girls to stay active
[14:48] regardless of ability or
[14:49] socioeconomic >> status. As
[14:52] someone who has been proud to
[14:53] support bossy, I have seen
[14:56] firsthand why this organization
[14:58] is so important to our
[14:59] community. Throughout >> the
[15:01] last 21 years bossy has
[15:03] supported over 29,000 children
[15:06] and youth through participation
[15:08] in their free programs.
[15:10] empowered 80 plus coaches and
[15:13] inspired >> more than 9800
[15:15] volunteers. And let's be honest
[15:19] girls belong on the court, on
[15:21] the field, at the rink and in
[15:23] the stands cheering each other
[15:25] on. We're also living >>
[15:27] through such an exciting time
[15:28] for women's sports here in
[15:30] san jose and across the bay
[15:31] area particularly with the
[15:33] addition of the national >>
[15:35] women's hockey league team
[15:36] coming to san jose soon. We're
[15:39] seeing more professional
[15:40] women's sports teams, more
[15:41] attention to women athletes and
[15:43] more young girls getting >> the
[15:45] chance to see women succeeding
[15:47] at the highest levels. And I
[15:48] think one of the most powerful
[15:50] things we can give a young girl
[15:52] is the ability to look at an
[15:53] athlete and say >> I want to be
[15:56] her or even better I can be
[15:59] her. But that starts way before
[16:02] the professional level. It
[16:03] starts when a girl gets her
[16:05] first pair of cleats steps onto
[16:07] a field, joins a team and
[16:09] realizes she belongs there.
[16:12] that's where >> the bay area
[16:14] women's sports initiative comes
[16:15] in. Girls often have less
[16:18] opportunities to play
[16:20] sports than boys. And this
[16:21] disparity is even greater for
[16:23] girls of color. Girls who play
[16:26] sports have better physical and
[16:27] mental health outcomes and
[16:29] graduate high school and
[16:30] college at higher rates. Bossy
[16:33] is creating those opportunities
[16:35] for girls right here in our
[16:36] community. Bosses first
[16:38] initiative aims to harness the
[16:41] power of women athletes by
[16:42] providing opportunity to serve
[16:45] young girls who weren't being
[16:46] exposed to organized sports or
[16:49] physical education classes and
[16:51] to reach girls in communities
[16:53] >> where obesity and diabetes
[16:55] were prevalent. As someone who
[16:58] cares deeply about san jose and
[17:00] the young people who call our
[17:02] city home, I really value >>
[17:04] organizations that are
[17:05] investing in our kids and
[17:07] giving them opportunities to
[17:09] thrive. Because when we invest
[17:12] in girls in sports we aren't
[17:14] just creating better athletes.
[17:16] we're creating future leaders,
[17:18] coaches and community members.
[17:21] congratulations to >> bossie
[17:23] your coaches, volunteers,
[17:25] parents and the incredible
[17:27] young women and girls you
[17:28] serve. Thank you for reminding
[17:31] our girls that they are capable
[17:33] and reserve >> every chance to
[17:35] play, compete, lead and
[17:38] succeed. To >> accept today's
[17:41] commendation, I'd like to
[17:42] welcome dana weintraub, ceo
[17:44] of bossy. Okay. First of all, I
[17:53] would just like to recognize
[17:55] those young people who just
[17:56] performed and shared their
[17:58] incredible skill of tai chi
[18:01] taekwondo with us. Wow, that
[18:03] was impressive. Good >>
[18:06] afternoon, vice mayor foley.
[18:09] mayor mehan and all the members
[18:11] of the city council, city
[18:12] leaders, partners and friends
[18:15] today >> I also have with
[18:16] me two bossy alumni coaches who
[18:18] are now on staff with us also
[18:20] two former collegiate and
[18:22] professional athletes annette
[18:23] greenlee and lindsey van allen.
[18:25] so, so glad they could be here
[18:26] with us. The >> rest of our
[18:28] team is getting ready to get
[18:29] back on playgrounds for back to
[18:31] school. On behalf of all of us,
[18:33] thank you for this incredibly
[18:35] meaningful recognition of our
[18:37] 20th plus one anniversary bossi
[18:40] story is in so many ways a
[18:43] san jose's story. We were
[18:45] founded in 2005 at a time when
[18:48] investment in women's
[18:50] sports and access for sport for
[18:52] girls was far from guaranteed.
[18:54] the first women's professional
[18:56] soccer league had recently
[18:57] folded including our very own
[18:59] san jose cyber is the league's
[19:01] very first champions. Marlene
[19:03] barnes read the former manager
[19:05] of the cyber res along with
[19:07] soccer legend legends san jose
[19:09] native and santa clara bronco
[19:11] brandi chastain and stanford
[19:13] cardinal julie foudy wanted to
[19:16] preserve something powerful
[19:17] that had grown out of that team
[19:19] the connection between women
[19:21] athletes and community in truth
[19:23] silicon valley fashion bossi
[19:25] began in marlene's garage and
[19:27] our first official office soon
[19:29] followed right here at city
[19:31] hall at the invitation of then
[19:32] mayor ron gonzalez. So it feels
[19:35] especially fitting to be back
[19:37] here at city hall 20 plus years
[19:39] later since our founding as you
[19:41] just heard from vice mayor
[19:44] foley, bossi has enrolled over
[19:45] 29,000 children and youth
[19:47] engaged over 9500 volunteers
[19:50] and 80 athlete leadership team
[19:52] coaches, two of whom are with
[19:53] me today. We've built deep
[19:55] partnerships with schools and
[19:56] communities >> throughout
[19:57] san jose and the bay area. But
[19:59] the numbers only tell part
[20:01] of our story. The real story is
[20:03] the thousands of girls from
[20:05] under-resourced neighborhoods
[20:06] and children with disabilities
[20:07] who have stepped onto a busy
[20:09] playground and found that they
[20:11] belong. The young girl >> who
[20:12] finds confidence and begins to
[20:14] see yourself as a leader the
[20:16] bossy alumni who come back
[20:17] years later >> and are leaders
[20:19] in their community >> as bossy
[20:21] coaches, volunteers, staff and
[20:24] board members as well as chief
[20:27] of staff to city council member
[20:28] peter ortiz. Like our boss the
[20:30] alumni brisa rojas marino all
[20:32] creating the same opportunity
[20:34] for the next generation. 20
[20:36] years ago >> bossy was
[20:38] created in the wake of the loss
[20:40] of a professional women's
[20:41] sports team. Today san jose and
[20:43] the bay area area are
[20:45] experienced an extraordinary
[20:46] new era in women's sports. And
[20:48] the deep community connections
[20:50] which follow just yesterday the
[20:52] entire bfc team came out to
[20:55] hubbard media arts academy
[20:56] playground >> and >> reminded
[21:00] us what's possible when
[21:02] communities invest in the long,
[21:05] long game. We are deeply >>
[21:07] grateful to the city of san
[21:08] jose for being part of bossi
[21:10] story from the very beginning
[21:11] and continuing to believe in
[21:13] the power of sport to
[21:14] strengthen our community. Thank
[21:16] >> you vice mayor foley, mayor
[21:17] mehan and the entire city
[21:19] council for this commendation
[21:21] and for ensuring that the next
[21:23] generation of san jose youth
[21:25] has the opportunity to play, to
[21:27] lead and to succeed. We are
[21:29] incredibly proud of what we've
[21:30] built together over these first
[21:32] 20 years and even more excited
[21:35] about what's ahead. Thank you.
[21:41] and we have a little something
[21:42] to except when I first >>
[21:45] actually gave you this. Thank
[21:46] you very much. Thank you. And
[21:48] our community. Thank you.
[21:49] appreciate it. Let's get a
[21:50] photo and we have a little
[21:51] something for you to wear in
[21:52] the photo. Okay, great. Send
[21:57] middle
[22:11] thank. It's great. Thank you.
[22:13] thank you so much and hopefully
[22:16] see you at the bfc. All right.
[22:29] thank you vice mayor and boss.
[22:31] we really appreciate the
[22:32] incredible work you do on our
[22:33] community will now move on to
[22:35] councilmember mulcahy and
[22:36] councilor dumont if you would
[22:38] join me here at the podium we
[22:40] will recognize valley services
[22:42] >>
[22:53] . It's always good afternoon
[23:00] everyone. I first of all I want
[23:02] to say thanks to
[23:04] councilmember mulcahy for
[23:06] allowing me to present this
[23:07] commendation alongside with
[23:09] him. It is my honor to
[23:11] recognize valley >> services
[23:15] for nearly 40 years of service
[23:18] to the residents of san jose.
[23:21] founded by mike and monica
[23:23] salinas valley service began >>
[23:26] in 1986 as a small scrap metal
[23:30] businesses and has grown into
[23:33] full service sanitation company
[23:36] serving projects and events
[23:38] throughout our community.
[23:41] valley services has also been
[23:44] >> a dedicated community
[23:46] partners supporting local
[23:48] organization and events
[23:51] including working with the
[23:53] san jose foos to provide
[23:55] restroom facility >> for major
[23:58] community gathering. I
[24:00] especially want to recognize
[24:02] their commitment to second
[24:04] chance employment by creating
[24:07] opportunities for individual
[24:09] who are incarcerated or return
[24:12] from rehabilitation. Valet
[24:14] service has helped people
[24:17] rebuild their lives, support >>
[24:19] their families and reach
[24:21] important milestones. For four
[24:24] decades valley's >> service
[24:26] have shown that a successful
[24:28] local business can also be a
[24:30] force for positive change.
[24:33] while staying true to >> it,
[24:35] family and community values >>
[24:38] on behalf of the city of san
[24:40] jose, thank you for your
[24:42] continuous service and
[24:44] commitment to our community.
[24:47] and I believe >> would like to
[24:50] say a few words. >> good
[24:54] afternoon mayor. Council
[24:56] members and everyone here
[24:57] today. On behalf of my family
[25:00] and everyone at valley services
[25:01] thank you for this recognition.
[25:03] it's especially meaningful to
[25:04] receive it here in san jose
[25:07] down the road from spartan
[25:08] stadium. There's a stretch
[25:10] of railroad tracks on south
[25:11] seventh street. My dad played
[25:13] along those tracks as a kid
[25:14] growing up in san jose. With
[25:16] humble beginnings and often
[25:18] finding refuge there when
[25:19] things got >> rough at home.
[25:21] decades later my parents would
[25:22] build valley's newest facility
[25:24] along those very same tracks. A
[25:26] full circle moment. I don't
[25:28] think either of them could have
[25:29] imagined at the time my parents
[25:32] mike and monica met in san jose
[25:34] when they were 16 and went on
[25:37] to start the business in 1986.
[25:39] at just 25 years old with one
[25:41] truck hauling scrap metal and
[25:43] junk cars around >> the bay
[25:44] area 40 years later valley is
[25:47] still proudly rooted right here
[25:49] in san jose. Today we employ
[25:51] nearly 100 people operate a c
[25:54] and disposal facility and
[25:55] provide site services for some
[25:57] of the bay area's largest
[25:58] events including the two
[26:00] concerts that were held right
[26:02] outside these doors. My three
[26:05] sisters and I grew up in the
[26:06] yard with our parents.
[26:08] eventually a few of us along
[26:09] with our husbands found our own
[26:11] places within the business. >>
[26:13] and now my two sons I see >>
[26:15] here are growing up there too.
[26:17] but when >> I think about what
[26:18] has allowed valley to be here
[26:20] for 40 years, the story isn't
[26:22] really about >> our family.
[26:24] it's >> about the people who
[26:25] built this company alongside us
[26:27] . From the beginning my parents
[26:29] believed in giving people an
[26:31] opportunity to work including
[26:32] those looking for a second
[26:33] chance or simply needing
[26:35] someone to take a chance on
[26:36] them. We watched people turn
[26:38] those opportunities into
[26:39] careers, become leaders within
[26:41] our company, support their
[26:43] families, buy their first
[26:45] homes, start businesses
[26:46] of their own. And even retire
[26:48] after decades with valley. For
[26:50] some those milestones may have
[26:52] once felt out of reach. That's
[26:54] what our purpose >> empowering
[26:55] lives enhancing communities
[26:56] means to us and creating
[26:58] opportunities for people and
[26:59] being there for the community
[27:01] that has been there for us. >>
[27:03] so while our family is
[27:04] incredibly proud to accept this
[27:05] commendation, we accept it on
[27:07] behalf of our employees past
[27:08] and present. They are the
[27:10] people who made valley what it
[27:11] is. 40 years ago my dad was the
[27:14] kid who found refuge along
[27:15] those tracks on south seventh
[27:17] street. Today my children are
[27:19] growing up on that same ground.
[27:21] san jose is where my parents
[27:22] story began where valley's
[27:24] story began and where we hope
[27:25] the next generation will
[27:26] continue it. Thank you to
[27:28] councilmembers mulcahy, dewan,
[27:30] mayor mason and the city
[27:32] council for this recognition.
[27:33] we're incredibly grateful to
[27:35] call san jose home. Thank you
[27:36] >>
[27:47] . Just so we can get away
[28:14] . Bye bye. All right. We're on
[28:22] to our third and final
[28:23] ceremonial item for today.
[28:25] kills for our compost. If you
[28:26] would join me at the podium. We
[28:28] will recognize as jaycee's
[28:30] air traffic controllers. >>
[28:38] thank you, mayor, and good
[28:40] afternoon everyone. Whenever we
[28:43] are flying >> in or out of san
[28:45] jose, do you ever think about
[28:47] the many people who make our
[28:49] journey possible? Today we
[28:51] celebrate >> and recognize the
[28:53] work of air traffic
[28:54] controllers. These are the men
[28:57] and women who keep airplanes
[28:59] at safe distances >> from each
[29:00] other and prevent them from
[29:02] colliding. Thanks to our
[29:04] air traffic controllers nearly
[29:06] 12 million annual passengers
[29:08] travel safely through san jose
[29:10] mineta airport. Being an air >>
[29:13] traffic controller requires
[29:14] exceptional levels
[29:16] of concentration and
[29:18] communication to ensure
[29:19] aircrafts can take off and land
[29:21] safely and in spite
[29:24] of adversary and I'm sorry
[29:25] adverse adversity like staff
[29:27] shortages or government
[29:29] shutdowns. Our air traffic
[29:30] controllers show up sometimes
[29:33] going weeks without pay. And
[29:35] during the most recent
[29:36] government shutdown several
[29:38] local organizations stepped up
[29:40] and provided different levels
[29:42] of assistance to this group
[29:44] of federal workers for which I
[29:45] am deeply, deeply grateful to
[29:47] all of the neighbors who showed
[29:49] up for our community and
[29:50] supported our air traffic
[29:52] controllers here in san jose.
[29:54] we often don't get to see,
[29:56] interact or think the people
[29:57] who make our air travel
[29:59] possible. And it's my hope that
[30:01] >> with this commendation we
[30:03] are demonstrating a small token
[30:06] of our appreciation for the
[30:07] hard work and at times
[30:09] sacrifice that our air traffic
[30:11] controllers make to ensure that
[30:12] we get to our destinations
[30:13] safely. So today we are joined
[30:15] by alex coronado and colby
[30:18] saunders of san jose mineta
[30:20] airport. And now I'd like to
[30:22] invite victor ramirez to share
[30:24] a few words and accept this
[30:25] commendation on behalf of the
[30:27] air traffic controllers here
[30:28] at san jose. Thank you so >>
[30:35] much. I didn't have a speech
[30:36] friday. I came straight from
[30:37] work today but I truly
[30:38] appreciate it. We are the ones
[30:40] behind the scenes. When you
[30:41] talk about aviation, when
[30:43] you're taking a flight you
[30:44] always think about the pilot
[30:44] because you see the pilot. He's
[30:46] the one that greets you the
[30:46] ticket agent. They're the ones
[30:47] to collect your tickets. But
[30:49] you forget about the behind the
[30:50] scenes. So I truly appreciate
[30:51] it. And all the air traffic
[30:52] controllers are grateful for
[30:53] this opportunity to kind of be
[30:55] in the limelight. I know
[30:56] sometimes tragic accidents do
[30:58] bring us to the limelight and
[31:00] that's one of the things that
[31:02] did bring us the limelight with
[31:03] the accident. But even during
[31:05] this shutdown we truly
[31:06] appreciate all the
[31:07] organizations, agencies,
[31:08] companies that came out support
[31:10] it whether it was lunch,
[31:12] coffee. So we do appreciate
[31:14] that because yeah, being on the
[31:15] shutdown for 40 days plus
[31:17] without pay, it made a lot
[31:19] of impact on our families and
[31:20] our daily lives. So we are so
[31:22] grateful and remember next time
[31:24] you guys are flying or going to
[31:25] your destination, there's
[31:27] people behind the scenes that
[31:28] do a lot of this work and try
[31:29] and make sure that we get you
[31:31] guys there safely, smoothly.
[31:32] hopefully don't blame us for
[31:34] being delayed. It's not us.
[31:36] most of the time it's whether
[31:37] but the pilots will blame the
[31:39] air traffic controllers. But
[31:40] thank you again >>
[31:53] for
[32:45] all right. Thank you all very
[32:46] much. We are on to orders
[32:49] of the day. Do any colleagues
[32:51] have suggested changes to
[32:53] today's printed agenda? For
[32:55] casey. >> yes. I'd like to pull
[32:58] item 10.1 please. Okay. That's
[33:01] off land use concern. Okay.
[33:02] well, when we get to ladies
[33:04] consent, we will do that. You
[33:06] know, appreciate the heads up.
[33:08] any other changes to the
[33:09] printed agenda? Not seeing any.
[33:11] we do have an adjournment today
[33:14] . >> today will be adjourning
[33:20] today's meeting in honor
[33:22] of father peter pabst sj. Today
[33:26] I want to take a moment to
[33:27] remember and honor the life
[33:29] of father peter pabst who
[33:31] passed away in may. A man whose
[33:33] faith, compassion, humor and
[33:37] unwavering belief in young
[33:38] people touched countless
[33:40] countless lives here in
[33:41] san jose. Father peter gerard
[33:43] pabst was born in saint paul,
[33:45] minnesota in 1954 and his
[33:49] impact here in san jose began
[33:51] in 1986. After being ordained a
[33:54] priest in san francisco. Part
[33:57] of his ministry included
[33:58] serving at bellarmine and as a
[34:01] resident minister at santa
[34:03] clara university. Experiences
[34:05] that helped him find his gift
[34:07] for connecting with young
[34:08] people, helping them see
[34:09] possibilities for their lives
[34:11] that they couldn't yet see for
[34:13] themselves. That gift was
[34:15] at the heart of his most
[34:17] important life life's work. In
[34:20] 2000 father pabst founded the
[34:23] sacred heart nativity school's
[34:25] opening new doors for students
[34:27] from low income families. Then
[34:30] in 2013 he took on another
[34:33] ambitious mission as the
[34:35] founding present of crystal
[34:36] rey, san jose's jesuit high
[34:38] school. Father pabst believed
[34:41] deeply that a family's income
[34:43] should never determine whether
[34:44] a young person has access to an
[34:46] excellent education or the
[34:49] opportunity to build a bright
[34:50] future. Under his leadership as
[34:53] founding present and later as
[34:54] chancellor crystal rose,
[34:56] san jose has helped hundreds
[34:58] of students become the first in
[35:00] their families to attend
[35:01] college. That is an
[35:03] extraordinarily legacy. But
[35:05] anyone who knew father pabst
[35:07] knows that his impact can't be
[35:09] measured just by the
[35:11] institutions he built or the
[35:12] number of students who he
[35:14] helped get on the path to
[35:15] college. Service was deeply
[35:18] personal to him. He found
[35:20] tremendous joy in people. He
[35:23] was proud of his students and
[35:25] alumni and those who supported
[35:27] them and he stayed connected
[35:29] with former students long after
[35:31] they graduated, sometimes even
[35:32] officiating their weddings. His
[35:35] warmth, infectious energy and
[35:37] sense of humor made people feel
[35:40] welcome while his faith
[35:41] inspired them to believe in
[35:43] themselves and what was
[35:44] possible for their lives. Today
[35:47] we honor father pabst not only
[35:50] for his service and what he
[35:52] built but for how he made
[35:54] people feel seen, supported,
[35:58] encouraged and loved. On behalf
[36:01] of the city of san jose, I want
[36:03] to extend our deepest
[36:04] condolences to father papp's
[36:06] family to the many students,
[36:08] colleagues, friends and loved
[36:10] ones whose lives he profoundly
[36:12] touched. And now I'd like to
[36:16] invite carla quinto, a crystal
[36:19] alum, to share a few words
[36:20] about father pabst. >> welcome.
[36:25] thank you. I recently had a
[36:28] question posed to me and that
[36:30] is who have you met >> that
[36:32] changed the course of your
[36:33] life? For me it was a man who
[36:35] had a vision of providing
[36:36] resources, access and
[36:38] opportunity to kids in
[36:40] san jose. Reverend peter patz
[36:42] believed that education was the
[36:44] great equalizer to give these
[36:46] students a chance to get out
[36:48] of poverty. In 2012, reverend
[36:50] peter pappas became the present
[36:52] of christ the san jose jesuit
[36:54] high school where he continued
[36:55] to wear many hats to support
[36:57] the school's mission to help
[36:59] students get to and through
[37:00] college and to be set on a path
[37:03] toward a sustainable,
[37:04] fulfilling future. Under his
[37:07] leadership, 100% of christa rey
[37:09] alums have been admitted to
[37:10] four year universities with
[37:12] most the first in their
[37:14] families to pursue higher
[37:15] education. They start their
[37:17] college career with
[37:18] professional experience gained
[37:20] through a corporate work study
[37:21] program that partners with
[37:23] companies across multiple
[37:24] industries in silicon valley
[37:26] including nonprofit kids, tech
[37:28] giants, health care and
[37:30] educational institutions where
[37:32] students work for one day a
[37:33] week obtaining valuable
[37:35] communication organization and
[37:37] interpersonal skills needed in
[37:39] the workplace. I had the
[37:41] opportunity to graduate from
[37:43] chris array's inaugural class
[37:44] in 2018 where I graduated with
[37:47] over 1000 hours of work
[37:49] experience as an internet cisco
[37:51] systems and acceptance and
[37:53] scholarship to santa clara
[37:54] university. I've since grown in
[37:57] my career at stanford
[37:58] university for the past four
[38:00] and a half years where I am a
[38:02] talent development coordinator
[38:03] helping our staff grow
[38:04] professional li and obtain
[38:06] skills meaningful to their
[38:07] careers. >> and in 2024 I
[38:10] started my own small business
[38:11] providing career coaching for
[38:12] early in career first
[38:14] generation professionals where
[38:16] I have been able to help over
[38:17] 100 people understand and
[38:19] navigate the job search process
[38:21] . But I'm not the only one who
[38:23] has been able to reap the
[38:25] benefits of getting access to
[38:27] the resources christopher array
[38:28] provided for its students as
[38:30] over 150 alumni have been hired
[38:33] by christopher wray work city
[38:34] partners for internships and
[38:36] professional work. With
[38:38] christopher, his fifth
[38:39] graduating >> class earning
[38:40] degrees from four year colleges
[38:42] this year, alumni are entering
[38:44] the workforce not only with a
[38:46] degree but extensive work
[38:48] experience and a professional
[38:49] network of mentors and
[38:51] champions. None of this would
[38:53] have been possible without
[38:55] reverends peter papp's vision
[38:57] to create opportunities for
[38:59] students in east san jose. His
[39:01] passion to serve
[39:02] under-resourced families should
[39:03] be recognized and and
[39:05] remembered for its
[39:06] extraordinary >> impact on the
[39:08] community. I'm proud to be an
[39:10] alumna from christa ray and I'm
[39:12] thankful for reverend papp's
[39:13] contributions to make dreams
[39:15] possible for many students and
[39:17] families in san jose. Thank
[39:19] you. Thank >> you. We really
[39:28] appreciate you being here to
[39:29] share how father pabst impacted
[39:31] your life and that of hundreds
[39:32] of other students I know we're
[39:34] also joined by leaders jesuit
[39:36] school leaders, educators,
[39:38] staff >> from santa clara
[39:40] university, christopher wray,
[39:41] jesuit high school and sacred
[39:43] heart nativity schools. I just
[39:44] want to thank you all for being
[39:46] here. If you'd like to stand
[39:47] up, we'll just thank you for
[39:48] your service in our community.
[39:50] I know peter papp's had a big
[39:51] impact on your lives. You don't
[39:53] have to stand up but thank you
[39:54] all for being >> here and thank
[40:03] you again for being here to
[40:04] help honor a great man who had
[40:05] an incredible impact on our
[40:07] community. We're going to move
[40:08] on now to our >> close session
[40:11] report. >> thank you, mayor.
[40:14] nothing to report from closed
[40:16] session today. Okay. Thank >>
[40:18] you. So we I know we have a
[40:20] number of folks here who want
[40:21] to comment on an item coming up
[40:22] a little later. I do since we
[40:24] have folks who may not have
[40:24] been here in the past, I just
[40:26] want to note that if you would
[40:28] like to speak it would we would
[40:31] appreciate if you would fill
[40:32] out a comment >> card. Our
[40:34] clerk will call out your names.
[40:36] the comment cards are down here
[40:39] at the bottom of the
[40:41] ampitheater seating and there's
[40:43] and also up at the top. So if
[40:44] you would fill out a card and
[40:45] make clear which item on the
[40:47] agenda you want to speak on
[40:48] that will help us be more
[40:49] efficient. Thank you all. Next
[40:51] is the consent calendar. Are
[40:54] there any items council members
[40:55] would like to pull from consent
[40:58] ? Not seen >> any. Do we have a
[41:02] motion so I can. Great. Thank
[41:05] you toni. Do we have public >>
[41:07] comment on the consent
[41:09] calendar? Yes >> I do. I have
[41:11] currently three cards in person
[41:12] and five hands online before I
[41:15] call names as a reminder,
[41:16] speakers must comply with the
[41:17] city's code of conduct for
[41:18] public meetings. Please direct
[41:20] comments to the body limit
[41:21] remarks to the agenda item. In
[41:23] this case it's the consent
[41:24] calendar as a whole even if you
[41:27] submitted more than one card
[41:29] for an item you will speak one
[41:31] minute on all of the items.
[41:34] conduct that materially
[41:35] disrupts the meeting or
[41:36] interferes with others ability
[41:37] to participate may result in
[41:38] muting or removal as authorized
[41:40] by law. If you are
[41:41] participating by telephone you
[41:42] press star nine to raise your
[41:43] hand and I actually see the
[41:45] three cards I have in person
[41:46] are for the same person. So
[41:48] america please come on down.
[41:50] you have one minute to speak on
[41:51] all three items and then online
[41:53] I'll move to dave followed by
[41:55] blair >>
[42:12] and that's all I need to get
[42:19] and I know I want to get
[42:23] everybody am I'm sorry if you
[42:25] want to speak on this item you
[42:27] can come down. You will have
[42:28] one minute. The agenda is
[42:29] posted online as always >> I
[42:33] understand you have one minute
[42:34] on this item. This is the
[42:35] consent calendar. >> okay. I'm
[42:37] going to go ahead and move up
[42:38] to the online. Go >> to online
[42:40] first. Go ahead, dave followed
[42:44] by blair. Go ahead, dave
[42:50] followed by blair dave,
[42:52] go ahead, kay. I'm going >> to
[42:58] move on to blair followed by
[42:59] connie. >> hi blair beekman boy
[43:05] it's nice to appear on zoom
[43:06] again here in san jose. I'm
[43:08] living in san diego for the
[43:09] past four years. Thank you for
[43:11] working with the state
[43:12] of california to allow zoom
[43:13] again and hopefully we can have
[43:17] a hopeful good public decorum
[43:19] and public process with the
[43:20] future of zoom. It's a real
[43:22] good democratic community too.
[43:24] thank you. >> I wanted to
[43:26] comment on the northern
[43:28] california regional
[43:29] intelligence center that you
[43:30] are going to be approving
[43:31] today. I hope there can be a
[43:33] comment from your someone from
[43:36] council what exactly we are
[43:38] doing with the future of nick
[43:39] rick things they've just been
[43:41] caught with san francisco you
[43:43] know giving federal agencies
[43:46] carte blanche to data
[43:48] collection practices and
[43:51] they've been spying on people
[43:52] and spying on our immigrant
[43:55] communities in really large
[43:57] numbers. What is southeast
[43:58] response to that? How are you
[44:00] going to work on that? And I'll
[44:02] talk more about this item at a
[44:05] connie followed by america in
[44:08] person. Hello, my name is
[44:13] connie. Good morning mayor and
[44:14] council members I am speaking
[44:16] on consent item ten dot 1ai am
[44:20] county I'm sorry we're not on
[44:22] the the land use consent right
[44:24] now so those people who are
[44:26] online if you're here to speak
[44:27] about 10.1 a we're going to get
[44:31] to that next so I would thank
[44:34] you. Okay. I'm going to
[44:37] go ahead and go to america here
[44:38] in person. I'm >> speaking to
[44:47] three items today regarding
[44:49] northern california regional
[44:50] intelligence center. It has
[44:52] something to do with your >>
[44:55] citizens quality of life.
[44:57] therefore it is illegal to put
[44:59] this under a consent agenda.
[45:01] your staff is trying to do it
[45:04] under the radar pass so nobody
[45:06] knows what you guys are trying
[45:07] to do with the intelligence
[45:08] center that needs to be put to
[45:10] be discussed. I wish to pour
[45:12] that I also wish to poor
[45:14] resilience facility coalition
[45:16] adoption for the four climate
[45:18] bond readiness that concerns
[45:20] your citizens property taxes >>
[45:23] you're trying to make a pay
[45:24] more taxes again and she is
[45:26] again trying to pass this under
[45:27] the radar. I wish to pull that
[45:29] for your citizens to discuss in
[45:31] open public discussion. I also
[45:33] wish to pull your heritage tree
[45:36] list to be discussed because
[45:38] heritage tree list has >>
[45:41] sentimental feelings and values
[45:43] to your citizens who are
[45:45] founding citizens. So just >>
[45:48] okay that's your time bryan >>
[45:51] online followed by not fine in
[45:53] person I think the applause may
[46:01] have drowned out that I called
[46:02] a person. Can you hear me okay?
[46:04] yeah. Hold on, bryan. After
[46:07] after bryan is not fine. Come
[46:10] on down. Go ahead, bryan. >>
[46:12] thank you, ma'am. I would I
[46:14] sent a letter about the tree
[46:15] thing and I know we're going to
[46:18] be sticking to one minute. I
[46:20] would like to remind everybody
[46:21] that mr. Bateman has been
[46:23] bringing up the security issues
[46:24] and data being shared for many,
[46:27] many, many, many, many, many,
[46:28] many, many, many years and for
[46:30] many, many, many, many years
[46:32] mr. Beekman has been ignored
[46:33] and he has been correct pretty
[46:36] much about all of it. And so
[46:38] now people are councils are
[46:39] having to go back and finish. I
[46:41] would just humbly suggest that
[46:43] maybe people listen to us just
[46:46] once in a while. That's not a
[46:48] rude I'm sorry that make it
[46:50] clearer that you're hearing it.
[46:51] thank you. >> thank you. Not
[46:52] fine. Did you come down? It's
[46:56] anonymous. It just is not fine
[46:58] for the name. Okay. I'm going
[47:01] to move on to alec again. This
[47:04] is for regular consent, not
[47:06] 10.1 alec online. No, sorry. I
[47:12] think I'm in for the other one
[47:13] that you can pass. Okay. For
[47:14] now >> and then amy, that are
[47:27] you also 10.1. Hi, can you hear
[47:29] me now I'm talking about >>
[47:33] public safety and the data
[47:34] centers. Okay, go ahead. >>
[47:40] my name is amy. I grew up in
[47:42] santa clara county and I'm a
[47:44] survivor of a live torture
[47:45] basement. I was placed in
[47:47] special victims unit and I've
[47:49] been in relocation programs for
[47:51] 25 years. I've been trying to
[47:53] join in reports of child
[47:56] trafficking and at the san jose
[47:58] pd lobby who have been blocking
[48:01] me time and time and time again
[48:04] internal affairs picked up
[48:05] my case and then they did an
[48:07] investigation. They found out
[48:08] the police officers were found
[48:10] guilty >> and disciplined. And
[48:14] to this day I still haven't
[48:15] been able to enter in my in
[48:17] my evidence and withholding
[48:20] evidence from the multistate
[48:21] investigation naming my abuser
[48:24] as I suspect is called
[48:27] obstruction of justice and I'm
[48:30] receiving violent retaliation.
[48:32] >> okay. Thank you. And the
[48:35] in-person speaker didn't come
[48:36] down so I'm going to go back to
[48:37] counsel. That's all. Okay,
[48:40] great. I just want to note for
[48:42] the record since we have a
[48:43] number of people here and I
[48:44] heard some applause that item
[48:46] two nine which is on consent is
[48:48] a very simple and very small
[48:50] reimbursement from the county
[48:51] of san mateo to our police
[48:52] department for services we
[48:54] rendered it related to
[48:55] intelligence around human
[48:56] trafficking and terrorism. It's
[48:58] a pretty routine item probably
[48:59] doesn't need a lot
[48:59] of discussion or debate and the
[49:02] other is the ability for the
[49:03] city to apply for grant funding
[49:05] for some resilience work that
[49:07] we'd be doing. Also a very
[49:08] modest amount of money. So
[49:10] that's why we have a consent
[49:11] calendar is to be efficient and
[49:13] allow time for the public to
[49:14] comment and for us to discuss
[49:16] and debate the big policy
[49:17] questions that this council
[49:19] needs to weigh in on. So don't
[49:21] want anyone to think we're
[49:21] hiding the ball here. So on the
[49:23] consent calendar and the items
[49:25] that have been posted since
[49:27] last week we had a motion to
[49:29] have any further discussion,
[49:31] not seen any. So toni, let's
[49:32] vote on the consent calendar
[49:34] please
[49:50] . >> motion passes unanimously
[49:54] . Okay. Thank >> you. So we're
[49:56] on to the land use consent
[49:59] calendar and councilor akc I
[50:01] think requested to poll and
[50:03] comment on item 10.1 a is that
[50:06] >> correct? Hillsborough a case
[50:07] to the floor is yours. Thank >>
[50:08] you, mayor. Just a couple
[50:11] of questions for staff if
[50:13] they're available I'll start
[50:19] while you guys are coming down.
[50:20] so the current pd there's some
[50:21] question as to whether or not
[50:23] it designates the permanent
[50:24] open space for the 565 acres
[50:27] and how this conforming
[50:29] rezoning would impact that.
[50:39] thank you. Councilmember chris
[50:40] burton, director of planning
[50:40] building code enforcement. We
[50:42] brought a whole cast
[50:42] of characters to answer your
[50:43] questions. So currently there's
[50:46] a pd zoning in place. It's an
[50:47] older zoning that allowed for
[50:50] the specific prior use which
[50:51] was the I-beam almaden research
[50:53] facility on a portion of this
[50:55] site and then the balance
[50:58] of that pd zoning preserved
[51:00] open space you know in the 500
[51:02] plus acres surrounding it.
[51:04] since then obviously we've
[51:05] updated the general plan the
[51:07] underlying general plan
[51:08] designations to be consistent
[51:10] with that under the research
[51:12] facility we included the ip,
[51:15] the industrial park designation
[51:17] and so this rezoning would
[51:19] preserve both the open spaces,
[51:21] open space and then the
[51:23] research park as ip or
[51:25] industrial park moving forward.
[51:27] so we believe it's it's
[51:28] consistent with the general
[51:30] plan approvals that have
[51:31] already taken place and
[51:32] consistent with the types
[51:33] of uses that we've seen
[51:34] historically on this side. >>
[51:36] okay. So to be clear, the open
[51:38] space, the 565 acres will
[51:41] remain permanent open space
[51:42] with this. Okay. And then the
[51:46] second is as it relates to the
[51:47] potential for the industrial
[51:49] portion of the 35 acres or so
[51:51] to be at some point a data
[51:54] center and how this conforming
[51:56] rezoning would impact that. >>
[52:00] so the conforming rezoning
[52:02] would allow uses consistent
[52:04] with the industrial park
[52:05] designation which include data
[52:07] center with the issuance of a
[52:08] special use permit. So that's a
[52:09] discretionary permit that
[52:11] requires full clearance and
[52:13] would go to a director's
[52:14] hearing with public outreach
[52:16] and the opportunity for the
[52:18] public to comment. It's then
[52:20] appealable to the planning
[52:21] commission from that point so
[52:23] >> to be clear they would still
[52:25] have to apply they would still
[52:27] go through a process that would
[52:28] include public input and this
[52:30] does not rubber stamp that a
[52:33] data center being built there.
[52:35] that's correct. There is some
[52:37] conversations about having
[52:39] citywide guidelines as they
[52:41] apply to data centers. Would
[52:44] this in any way prevent this
[52:45] project's the potential data
[52:47] center from conforming to those
[52:49] guidelines or being involved?
[52:51] it would not know so I would
[52:53] check with staff but I believe
[52:55] we have received an application
[52:56] at this point and we don't
[52:58] receive so we haven't received
[53:00] an application at this point.
[53:01] we have received I think a
[53:02] prelim and had discussions with
[53:04] applicants considering the use
[53:06] you know typically a special
[53:08] use permit could range anywhere
[53:10] from you know, 6 to 9 months
[53:12] for a typical process to the
[53:13] extent that it involves an
[53:15] environmental impact report
[53:16] which again a lot of the data
[53:18] centers that we're processing
[53:19] require a full environmental
[53:21] impact report and it would
[53:23] likely take considerably
[53:24] longer. And so the approval for
[53:26] that special use permit would
[53:27] likely come after the adoption
[53:29] of the city wide standards on
[53:30] data centers. Great. Thank you.
[53:32] that's it for me, mayor. Thank
[53:33] you. Thanks, councilmember.
[53:35] appreciate it. Let me turn to
[53:36] council for a comment. Thank
[53:42] you. On the same item I'm just
[53:45] wondering if there are
[53:46] objective planning standards
[53:48] and why is this coming to us
[53:50] now? >> good afternoon munir
[53:56] cynthia, deputy director
[53:57] of planning. So the conforming
[53:59] rezoning is an obligation and
[54:01] therefore it's being brought to
[54:03] council. We do have design
[54:06] standards for projects that
[54:08] would come in the future at the
[54:09] site but the rezoning only
[54:11] allows for consistency between
[54:13] the existing zoning on site and
[54:15] the general plan designation so
[54:17] it expands the kinds of uses
[54:18] that could be allowed there
[54:19] under the industrial park
[54:21] general plan land use
[54:22] designation but without an
[54:25] application it's hard to say
[54:26] what kind of design standards
[54:28] would apply. Right. So >> I'm
[54:31] just wondering we received
[54:32] information from several groups
[54:34] that are very concerned about
[54:36] this and perhaps it's just a
[54:37] matter of understanding what
[54:39] this is and what this is not.
[54:41] and so they have asked for a
[54:43] deferral and since there's no
[54:46] urgency to this and there's no
[54:48] project to this, would a 30 day
[54:51] sort of a sort of hold be a
[54:55] problem? Oh yeah. I think it
[55:00] might be worth asking the
[55:01] applicant I think the applicant
[55:02] has put this proposal in to
[55:04] identify a clearer path of what
[55:06] kind of uses could be allowed
[55:07] on that side. So there is a
[55:08] project so there is a project
[55:11] not at the moment.
[55:14] councilmember >> if I can just
[55:15] expand on this. So obviously
[55:17] ibm have decided to dispose
[55:19] of the site. There's been a
[55:20] number of conversations that
[55:22] have been in play regarding
[55:24] this property around the future
[55:25] use. So as the need to be on
[55:27] your side so the property owner
[55:30] ibm who owns the facility is
[55:34] looking to dispose of the site
[55:35] right? So they're no longer
[55:37] continuing their operations. So
[55:38] we've had a number of different
[55:41] groups that have inquired about
[55:42] different types of uses on this
[55:45] site. So it's very typical that
[55:47] we would see on a project like
[55:48] this that the applicant would
[55:51] reason the property, you know,
[55:52] to make it consistent with the
[55:53] general plan and allow the full
[55:55] range of uses. As I said
[55:57] earlier when it was previously
[55:58] adopted it was a very narrow
[56:01] pre zoning that you know just
[56:02] included research and
[56:03] development. So they're looking
[56:05] to you know, maximize the
[56:06] opportunity through sale of the
[56:07] site so they're going to sell
[56:09] the property is that they are
[56:11] going to sell the property?
[56:11] yes, that's my understanding.
[56:13] okay. And it would it's >> more
[56:14] valuable if the zoning is
[56:15] different >> so that I mean I'm
[56:18] just wondering like what the
[56:20] urgency is to this. Right. And
[56:22] so I don't because we've been
[56:23] we've >> been asked we've been
[56:24] asked to consider deferring
[56:27] this to allow for more and you
[56:30] know more the groups who are
[56:31] concerned about it more
[56:32] information. Right. So I'm just
[56:34] I'm just sort of weighing you
[56:36] know, if there's no urgency
[56:37] there are no objective planning
[56:38] standards, you know, like
[56:40] what's the rush? >> so you
[56:43] know, from our perspective
[56:44] we're just trying to move
[56:45] applications through on a
[56:46] timely basis. I think as munir
[56:47] stated, I would encourage you
[56:49] to ask that question of the
[56:50] applicant. >> okay? And I'm
[56:53] going to give the applicant
[56:53] five minutes as soon as
[56:55] council's secondary questions.
[56:57] okay? Okay great councilmember
[57:00] we'll wait for the applicant.
[57:01] yeah. Okay. Any other
[57:03] preliminary questions? Okay. So
[57:06] as is our practice with land
[57:08] use items the applicant will
[57:09] have five minutes then we'll
[57:11] go to public comment and we'll
[57:13] come back we'll come back to
[57:14] the council. >> eric
[57:49] and
[58:03] to toni. Are we just waiting to
[58:05] get something up on the screen?
[58:06] yes. Okay. There >> we go.
[58:13] okay. You'll have five minutes.
[58:15] >> all right. Thank you, mayor
[58:16] mehan, members of the council.
[58:18] my name is eric shay. Now I
[58:19] represent the the >> ibm site
[58:23] rezoning. First of all, we want
[58:25] to thank city staff for all
[58:26] their time to get the
[58:27] application here. We have two
[58:30] parallel goals on this effort.
[58:32] one is to preserve the open
[58:34] space as it exists today. No
[58:36] changes to the open space.
[58:38] second, to allow the industrial
[58:40] site to be put back into
[58:42] economic use in an efficient
[58:45] manner >> quickly >> a vacant
[58:49] site would be susceptible >> to
[58:51] vandalism and homeless starting
[58:53] fires in the building which we
[58:55] experience all over our city on
[58:58] the screen. On the left >> is
[59:00] the existing general plan which
[59:02] is 565 acres of open space and
[59:05] 35 acres of industrial. On the
[59:07] right is our proposed zoning
[59:09] exactly the same 565 acres
[59:12] of open space and 35 acres
[59:15] of industrial park. This is
[59:17] from the staff report. >> it's
[59:21] appropriate to follow the
[59:23] adopted general plan of the
[59:25] city and the adopted zoning
[59:27] code of the city. The image on
[59:29] the screen is the san jose
[59:30] zoning code. What it says is
[59:33] when the general plan
[59:34] designation is industrial park
[59:36] which the 35 acres is then the
[59:38] zoning should be ip on the
[59:40] right side of the screen when
[59:42] the general plant is open space
[59:45] parkland and habitat then the
[59:47] zoning should be open space ohs
[59:50] zoning on the right side of the
[59:51] screen. So all this request is
[59:54] is to align the >> zoning with
[59:58] the general plan. >> why is
[1:00:02] this important? The property
[1:00:03] needs to be brought into the
[1:00:05] 21st century. This is
[1:00:06] specialized zoning for ibm was
[1:00:08] adopted back in the 80s and is
[1:00:11] very narrow >> just for
[1:00:14] research and parking. And this
[1:00:16] document looks like this image
[1:00:19] is the actual >> general
[1:00:21] development plan from the
[1:00:22] zoning as you can >> see very
[1:00:24] crude, very simple and it
[1:00:26] leaves a lot of opportunities
[1:00:27] off the table. So here are the
[1:00:30] challenges and the protections
[1:00:32] to attract investment and
[1:00:34] financing. We have to have a
[1:00:36] logical and predictable process
[1:00:38] with no risks or roadblocks.
[1:00:40] the current >> pd zoning is too
[1:00:42] limited it just says research
[1:00:44] leaving things off the table
[1:00:46] and it's uncertain about what
[1:00:48] the city would allow under
[1:00:49] research and 17 acres
[1:00:52] of parking that we probably
[1:00:53] don't need anymore sample uses
[1:00:56] in the current zoning >>
[1:00:58] code that wouldn't be allowed
[1:01:00] in >> the in the pd zoning >>
[1:01:04] laboratory processing light
[1:01:06] manufacturing and assembly
[1:01:07] general office r&d office
[1:01:09] medical office those >> are all
[1:01:12] reasonable things that could be
[1:01:13] done on this property but you
[1:01:14] can't do it under the current
[1:01:15] zoning. It's important to note
[1:01:18] that any future >> proposals
[1:01:20] that are special use or
[1:01:21] conditional use would require
[1:01:23] community engagement >> a
[1:01:25] sequel review process, city
[1:01:27] department review and public
[1:01:29] hearing any >> future sequel
[1:01:32] appeals on any of these future
[1:01:34] decisions are appealable to the
[1:01:35] city council. So in the end
[1:01:37] of the day the city council is
[1:01:38] in control and you have final
[1:01:40] say what happens on the
[1:01:41] property >> as far as zoning
[1:01:44] and general plan only the city
[1:01:46] council can ever change the
[1:01:48] zoning in the general plan. So
[1:01:49] if the zoning >> is open space
[1:01:53] it remains open space until the
[1:01:55] city council says otherwise. So
[1:01:58] today the council can >> make a
[1:02:01] clear statement by approving
[1:02:02] this zoning that you want to
[1:02:04] keep the 565 acres as open
[1:02:07] space and >> you want >> the
[1:02:10] industrial park area to be
[1:02:12] successful by allowing it to
[1:02:14] have modern zoning standards
[1:02:18] that the modern world will
[1:02:19] invest in. That's the urgency
[1:02:22] is we're trying to attract
[1:02:24] investment and financing so
[1:02:26] that this property can be
[1:02:28] repurposed since it's an old
[1:02:30] property it can take a lot
[1:02:31] of investment, a lot of work.
[1:02:33] so that's the urgency so that
[1:02:34] we can move the project and not
[1:02:36] have an empty building out in
[1:02:37] the open space that catches
[1:02:39] fire and endangers the open
[1:02:41] space and the city and the
[1:02:42] neighborhood. With that I'm
[1:02:44] available for any questions and
[1:02:46] I've been involved with this
[1:02:47] site for decades. I was council
[1:02:49] member >> dan doe's chief
[1:02:50] of staff when the housing
[1:02:52] proposal came forward in 98 and
[1:02:54] 99 and so I know all about the
[1:02:57] promise of open space and what
[1:02:59] that all means. I'm happy to
[1:03:00] give you that perspective if
[1:03:01] you'd like. Thank you. Okay.
[1:03:04] thank you. So for the applicant
[1:03:07] I suggest we go to public
[1:03:09] comment and come back for
[1:03:10] council discussion in a motion
[1:03:11] if that's if that's okay. Toni,
[1:03:13] do you have comment cards on
[1:03:14] this item? Yes, I have several.
[1:03:17] let me read as a reminder
[1:03:19] speakers must comply with the
[1:03:20] city's code of conduct for
[1:03:22] public meetings. Please direct
[1:03:23] comments to the body limit
[1:03:24] remarks to the agenda item and
[1:03:26] observe the time limit conduct
[1:03:27] that materially disrupts the
[1:03:29] meeting or interferes with
[1:03:30] others ability to participate
[1:03:31] may result in meeting or
[1:03:32] removal as authorized by law.
[1:03:35] if you're participating by
[1:03:36] telephone press star nine to
[1:03:37] raise your hand. Additionally
[1:03:39] we have about 30 speakers for
[1:03:42] this item so we're asking that
[1:03:45] instead of applause that you
[1:03:46] show your support visually such
[1:03:48] as jazz hands or thumbs up. So
[1:03:50] that the speakers further down
[1:03:51] the line don't have to wait
[1:03:52] extra time for toni. Let
[1:03:55] me emphasize that point. We
[1:03:56] have a lot of folks here today
[1:03:58] and particularly on the
[1:03:58] following item we're going to
[1:03:59] have a lot of strong emotions
[1:04:01] for and against and it's going
[1:04:02] to be a robust discussion in
[1:04:04] the interest of respecting
[1:04:06] everyone's first amendment
[1:04:07] rights, allowing us to get to
[1:04:09] that item and actually get out
[1:04:10] of here before midnight and
[1:04:11] have an efficient meeting. We
[1:04:13] always ask folks to not cheer
[1:04:16] or boo or just if you really
[1:04:18] want to show your support you
[1:04:20] can do this or whatever it is
[1:04:22] you want to do but we want to
[1:04:23] get through the meeting and not
[1:04:24] keep you here all day. But we
[1:04:25] do want to hear from you and we
[1:04:27] don't want anyone to feel
[1:04:28] pressured or intimidated. So
[1:04:29] please note sharing or booing
[1:04:31] let's let toni do her job and
[1:04:32] let's get through public
[1:04:33] comment. Go ahead, toni. Okay,
[1:04:35] I'm >> going to call about five
[1:04:36] names when you hear your name
[1:04:37] go ahead and come on down.
[1:04:38] first person to the microphone.
[1:04:39] go ahead and speak. You do not
[1:04:41] have to speak in the order that
[1:04:42] you're called. Evan brooks
[1:04:45] jessica larry ames, john come
[1:04:52] on. If your name is hurt, if
[1:04:54] you heard your name, go ahead
[1:04:55] and line up over here. First
[1:04:56] person in the microphone john
[1:04:58] leavitt and cindy h. >> evan
[1:05:04] brooks, adjoining property
[1:05:05] owner. I want to address one
[1:05:07] claim that the existing zoning
[1:05:09] and the proposed zoning protect
[1:05:10] this open space equally they do
[1:05:12] not. Under the current pd
[1:05:14] zoning ibm's own application
[1:05:16] allocates 569 acres exclusively
[1:05:19] to open space adding any other
[1:05:21] use means amending the pd a
[1:05:23] noticed hearing and a vote
[1:05:24] of this council after the
[1:05:26] rezoning the governing list
[1:05:27] becomes the zoning codes
[1:05:29] citywide use >> table for the
[1:05:31] district grading and earth
[1:05:33] removal mineral extraction and
[1:05:35] quarrying golf courses and
[1:05:37] shooting ranges are conditional
[1:05:38] uses. They're requiring only a
[1:05:40] use permit from the planning
[1:05:41] commission and it reaches you
[1:05:44] only if someone appeals and
[1:05:45] only a property owner within
[1:05:47] 1000ft can appeal. Now that's
[1:05:49] roughly 200 addresses and in
[1:05:51] 1999 alone 1250 residents
[1:05:54] signed petitions about this
[1:05:55] land. So today changing the use
[1:05:57] of this hillside takes a vote
[1:05:59] of this body. Tomorrow it takes
[1:06:01] a use permit. This is not
[1:06:02] equivalent. Please don't
[1:06:04] approve this without a recorded
[1:06:05] is >> that your time next
[1:06:07] speaker I'm dan from d10. Come
[1:06:09] on down and >> eric you're eric
[1:06:11] or he spoke and monie >> I'm
[1:06:15] jessica and I wrote all of you
[1:06:17] asking that this rezoning
[1:06:19] request be paused what is being
[1:06:21] presented as a simple
[1:06:22] conforming rezoning is more
[1:06:24] nuanced and has many impacts
[1:06:26] both to the open space and to
[1:06:28] the industrial portions. In
[1:06:30] december 1999 our city council
[1:06:32] approved a motion to find a way
[1:06:34] to protect ibm's open space in
[1:06:36] perpetuity. Sadly that prior
[1:06:39] counsel failed >> to complete
[1:06:40] what it started but you must do
[1:06:42] better in 2026. Do not make the
[1:06:45] mistake of equating open space
[1:06:47] zoning with permanent
[1:06:49] protection. The word permanent
[1:06:51] >> means nothing if the open
[1:06:53] space is not legally tied to a
[1:06:55] conservation easement, a land
[1:06:57] trust or other binding
[1:06:58] protection with no immediate
[1:07:00] development proposal pending
[1:07:02] you have the time to secure the
[1:07:04] open space permanently for
[1:07:05] future >> generations. Pause
[1:07:07] the request now so that the
[1:07:09] environmental, legal and land
[1:07:11] use issues at stake get the
[1:07:13] proper attention by city
[1:07:14] leadership and the public.
[1:07:18] thank you. Next speaker >> lena
[1:07:20] come on down and america, your
[1:07:25] letter >> your mike there you
[1:07:27] go. This is on now. Okay. Larry
[1:07:30] ames, I'm just here to make
[1:07:31] sure that you consider this
[1:07:32] property some I want to see the
[1:07:35] open space preserved and if
[1:07:36] it's just sound this way you
[1:07:38] can change at any given
[1:07:39] tuesday. So I want to see you
[1:07:40] have an easement for >> it also
[1:07:43] the development has to be in a
[1:07:45] certain place. You don't want
[1:07:47] to shift around any place up
[1:07:48] there. It's right now it's
[1:07:49] sheltered in a dip in the top
[1:07:51] of mountains so it's hidden
[1:07:53] from the surrounding areas so I
[1:07:54] don't want it built anyplace
[1:07:56] else other than there. I just
[1:07:57] want to see you consider
[1:07:58] listing property. You do not
[1:07:59] want to be rushed through >>
[1:08:00] here. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:08:04] next >> speaker now go ahead.
[1:08:21] I'm >> a resident of district
[1:08:23] ten in almaden. I strongly
[1:08:26] opposed the rezoning of the
[1:08:27] property at its six 650 harry
[1:08:30] road rezoning more than 600
[1:08:32] acres of open space ibm land
[1:08:35] break the city council's
[1:08:37] original amendment commitment
[1:08:39] to keep this land as a
[1:08:40] permanent open space and
[1:08:42] disregards >> the clear
[1:08:44] opposition of the almaden
[1:08:45] community. Although no formal
[1:08:47] easement currently exists, the
[1:08:49] responsible step is to defer
[1:08:52] any decision until council
[1:08:54] finalize the 1999 motion
[1:08:56] protecting this land in
[1:08:58] perpetuity with the same
[1:09:00] concern applied to the 35 acre
[1:09:02] proposed for industrial park
[1:09:04] use. I'd respectfully ask that
[1:09:07] this item be removed from the
[1:09:08] consent calendar so the public
[1:09:10] can foley participate. Please
[1:09:12] read postpone action until the
[1:09:15] permanent open space
[1:09:16] protections the data center and
[1:09:18] large energy project
[1:09:20] regulations are complete by
[1:09:22] this this you got your time
[1:09:25] help helen >> brock come on
[1:09:26] down and carol peacefully dear
[1:09:35] leaders I am dan from d-10
[1:09:38] please vote no to the proposed
[1:09:39] rezoning of 650 harry road
[1:09:42] san jose urgently needs to set
[1:09:44] some standards to protect
[1:09:45] residents from water and power
[1:09:46] supply problems before we
[1:09:48] continue permitting large data
[1:09:49] centers or other redevelopment
[1:09:51] to harry road where allowed >>
[1:09:53] large data centers are driving
[1:09:54] up regional power prices
[1:09:56] hurting residents out competing
[1:09:58] us for water to lake tahoe
[1:09:59] region residents receive 13
[1:10:01] months notice that their power
[1:10:02] wholesaler will cut them off
[1:10:04] because of a new data center
[1:10:05] customer data center owners
[1:10:07] must own their additional
[1:10:08] generating capacity not buy it
[1:10:10] on the market so residents will
[1:10:12] pay for new supply and don't
[1:10:13] pay for stranded generators
[1:10:15] when the data centers shut down
[1:10:17] water is critically short
[1:10:19] supply so only closed loop
[1:10:20] water circuits should ever be
[1:10:22] approved. Okay, let's not have
[1:10:24] a toxic release like erin
[1:10:25] brockovich story. Okay.
[1:10:28] san jose needs an emergency
[1:10:29] project to define mitigation
[1:10:31] for data centers over a
[1:10:32] megawatt and should not rezone
[1:10:34] to accommodate them until these
[1:10:36] are in place. Thank you. Next
[1:10:39] speaker. Josephine come on down
[1:10:42] and then I have an anonymous
[1:10:44] card. Please do not vote. Okay
[1:10:50] or pass on this particular
[1:10:52] item. I have no confidence in
[1:10:55] the management nor the former
[1:10:57] >> city council member who is
[1:10:58] now a lobbyist for a real
[1:11:00] estate shark that is on this
[1:11:02] agenda an item such as this
[1:11:05] zone change should not have
[1:11:07] been I agenda raised under a
[1:11:09] consent agenda which is
[1:11:10] designed to escape public
[1:11:13] scrutiny. Wealthy real estate
[1:11:15] sharks deliberately bribe and
[1:11:17] manipulate city government to
[1:11:18] make american >> corporate fail
[1:11:20] like stand most chevron
[1:11:22] headquarters disclosure I'm not
[1:11:25] suicidal and I drive safely all
[1:11:27] the time. >> good afternoon
[1:11:35] mayor and council members lena
[1:11:37] drape with the santa clara
[1:11:38] valley open space authority. We
[1:11:39] are very grateful >> for
[1:11:41] councilmember casey pulling
[1:11:42] this item and for
[1:11:43] councilmember kim for asking
[1:11:44] several questions at the open
[1:11:45] space authority and community
[1:11:46] members have shared and
[1:11:47] expressed our priority is >>
[1:11:50] for request is for this item to
[1:11:52] be deferred to allow critical
[1:11:53] questions to be answered first.
[1:11:55] first, we asked the city to
[1:11:57] address the permanent
[1:11:58] protection of the 565 acre
[1:12:00] portion of open space on this
[1:12:01] property that your council in
[1:12:03] 1999 directed staff to
[1:12:05] permanently protect as a part
[1:12:06] of mitigation for the ibm
[1:12:07] development. While we
[1:12:09] appreciate the confirmation
[1:12:10] just previously provided from
[1:12:11] staff open space zoning does
[1:12:13] not equate to permanent
[1:12:15] protection additional action is
[1:12:17] needed such as through a
[1:12:18] conservation easement. Second,
[1:12:20] we understand that the city
[1:12:21] needs to address general plan
[1:12:22] inconsistencies. But as
[1:12:23] previously alluded to there is
[1:12:25] no reason that a rezoning for
[1:12:26] this site must occur before a
[1:12:28] project application as put
[1:12:29] forward. Besides increasing the
[1:12:31] perceived developable value for
[1:12:32] resale preemptively rezoning >>
[1:12:35] the site to enable. Thank >>
[1:12:37] you that your time. I'd also
[1:12:40] like to call sandy down it >>
[1:12:46] please take the ibm property
[1:12:48] off of the consent calendar.
[1:12:50] there's discussion of data
[1:12:51] center and as we all know or
[1:12:53] have been informed data centers
[1:12:54] use >> a lot of water and
[1:12:56] electricity until san jose has
[1:12:59] the opportunity to put
[1:13:00] guidelines in place to protect
[1:13:03] the public from misuse of that.
[1:13:05] I'd like to see this put on
[1:13:07] taken off the consent calendar
[1:13:09] so that we can discuss it as
[1:13:10] well as quite frankly the open
[1:13:12] space. We have a critical sorry
[1:13:14] everybody >> problem with
[1:13:16] housing. So before we make >> a
[1:13:18] general decision to block that
[1:13:20] property off and put in a dated
[1:13:22] for for open space and put in a
[1:13:24] data center, let's >> have a
[1:13:25] discussion about it all.
[1:13:27] anyway, thank you. Thank you.
[1:13:31] next >> speaker, I thank you
[1:13:33] for your time. I'm looking
[1:13:35] at this like it's not changing
[1:13:39] the building >> structure and
[1:13:40] we need housing and we need
[1:13:41] jobs and different >> things
[1:13:42] where it's not going to congest
[1:13:43] the neighborhood or bring
[1:13:44] pollutants or harmful things to
[1:13:47] the community to consider maybe
[1:13:49] having more housing. 51% of my
[1:13:51] taxes go to property taxes
[1:13:55] go >> to education. I don't
[1:13:57] have a problem with that. If we
[1:13:58] can approval what the children
[1:14:00] are being taught I don't want
[1:14:02] children being sexualized and
[1:14:03] getting pregnant. I've been a
[1:14:04] foster parent. I've had rehabs,
[1:14:07] I've had different things. So
[1:14:08] if we can upgrade the community
[1:14:09] , not build big things in
[1:14:11] people's backyard, the lady was
[1:14:13] saying that someone who's not
[1:14:14] even a national proposed a 750
[1:14:16] bed right next to >> her. I
[1:14:18] mean think what you want to
[1:14:19] live where people are and
[1:14:21] there's no >> set backs. We
[1:14:22] have to be practical that's
[1:14:23] going to congested
[1:14:24] neighborhood. There's enough
[1:14:25] open land >> that we can
[1:14:27] consider it but if we can
[1:14:28] utilize this property that's
[1:14:29] been sitting >> there and
[1:14:30] rotting for how long? I used to
[1:14:32] work at ibm. >> thank you. That
[1:14:35] your time? Next speaker good >>
[1:14:42] afternoon. My name is marni.
[1:14:44] I'm an attorney and a san jose
[1:14:46] resident. My work is
[1:14:48] constitutional and antitrust
[1:14:50] litigation which means I read
[1:14:52] regulations for a living and
[1:14:54] tell a court whether it sweeps
[1:14:55] too far or too little. I've
[1:14:57] read the city's proposed
[1:15:00] framework >> and I fear it's
[1:15:03] one that should concern this
[1:15:04] council and your constituents.
[1:15:07] two gaps stand out. First,
[1:15:09] there's no enforcement
[1:15:10] backbone. If a data center
[1:15:12] violates its terms pollutes
[1:15:13] water exceeds noise limits
[1:15:15] there's no clear review process
[1:15:17] and no real consequence.
[1:15:19] second, there's no aftercare
[1:15:21] provision. Nothing addresses
[1:15:24] what happens when an operator
[1:15:25] simply decides to up and leave.
[1:15:29] so my question to this city
[1:15:30] council is what regulatory
[1:15:33] story do you >> want to tell?
[1:15:35] thank you. >> thank you. Next
[1:15:37] speaker. Yeah. This city has
[1:15:43] lobbied sacramento for speed
[1:15:45] cameras, red light cameras,
[1:15:47] road diets, flock cameras and
[1:15:49] everything else. What >> you
[1:15:50] need to lobby sacramento for is
[1:15:53] a better utility grid. Pagani
[1:15:56] doesn't have it. Everybody
[1:15:58] knows it. If you think that
[1:15:59] you're >> going to run a data
[1:16:01] center here. I got it. I
[1:16:03] got a bridge to sell you. It's
[1:16:04] not >> going to work. I saw a
[1:16:06] smile from the mayor there. And
[1:16:08] yeah, I mean you don't have you
[1:16:09] can't even turn a fan on when
[1:16:11] it gets hot and your power goes
[1:16:12] out. Do you really think you're
[1:16:14] going to build this? I mean >>
[1:16:15] it sounds great. I mean imagine
[1:16:18] the water bill they're going to
[1:16:19] get. Anybody got their water
[1:16:21] bill >> lately with $150
[1:16:23] surcharge? Can't imagine what
[1:16:25] it would be like for a data
[1:16:26] center. Oh yeah. They're going
[1:16:27] to recycle the water. Sure they
[1:16:29] are. Right. It's not >> going
[1:16:30] to work. You know what? Maybe
[1:16:32] turn this place into a data
[1:16:33] center? I don't know. But
[1:16:35] anyway, everybody vote no on
[1:16:37] new data centers until you have
[1:16:39] proper >> electro proper
[1:16:41] electrical grid. It's >> just
[1:16:43] that simple. That's your time.
[1:16:45] next speaker I've called all
[1:16:47] of the in-person cards that I
[1:16:49] received for this item. If you
[1:16:50] did not hear your name please
[1:16:51] line up. I'm going to move on
[1:16:53] to the virtual commenters next.
[1:16:55] go >> ahead. Hello, my name is
[1:16:57] sandy and I'm a long term
[1:16:59] resident of almaden valley.
[1:17:01] first I want to thank council
[1:17:03] member casey for hearing the
[1:17:05] voices of your constituents and
[1:17:08] removing the proposed rezoning
[1:17:09] of 650 harry from the consent
[1:17:12] calendar and allowing for some
[1:17:15] public >> discussion. However I
[1:17:18] want >> everyone to know that I
[1:17:20] am still very concerned >> that
[1:17:24] we may be making a decision
[1:17:26] today. I would like to thank I
[1:17:30] think it was councilmember may
[1:17:32] >> for asking some astute
[1:17:34] questions. Thank you. But the
[1:17:37] issue is one of many that many
[1:17:42] or a significant number
[1:17:44] of aluminum valley residents
[1:17:46] are still not aware of this
[1:17:48] rezoning or even this meeting
[1:17:50] today. I >> am one of less than
[1:17:54] 100 people >> who received the
[1:17:56] postcard at the >> start
[1:18:01] of good time. I'm steve. Come
[1:18:03] on down
[1:18:14] . >> my name is steve martin. I
[1:18:19] am a geothermal developer. I'm
[1:18:21] manoora educated redneck with a
[1:18:24] couple of bachelors from
[1:18:25] stanford and I developed
[1:18:28] geothermal power the last year
[1:18:31] thermal plant I developed in
[1:18:32] nevada is supplying power to
[1:18:34] sacramento. The reason I bring
[1:18:36] this up today is that this
[1:18:39] rezoning issue deals with
[1:18:42] carbon because we don't know
[1:18:43] who the bidder or the contract
[1:18:47] party is. We're not sure what's
[1:18:49] going to happen in terms of the
[1:18:51] power source for the data
[1:18:52] center that they intend to put
[1:18:54] in there. We want to know if we
[1:18:56] can here today who the bidder
[1:18:59] will be and I have provided for
[1:19:02] the council's view some things
[1:19:06] that would happen if there were
[1:19:08] a new bidder that had a very
[1:19:11] progressive program to offer.
[1:19:13] so I've listed the kinds
[1:19:15] of things that we would propose
[1:19:16] to do out there which would add
[1:19:20] thank >> you that your time
[1:19:21] next speaker I'm sorry that
[1:19:24] your time. Hello, my >> name is
[1:19:33] jasmine jordan. I would like to
[1:19:34] remind this council and the
[1:19:36] mayor of their responsibility
[1:19:37] to their constituents and not
[1:19:39] to corporate spokespeople like
[1:19:40] eric shen over of ibm during
[1:19:43] his five minutes of speaking he
[1:19:46] focused on the point that the
[1:19:48] acreage of the ibm industrial
[1:19:50] park will remain the same. But
[1:19:53] that does not mean that the
[1:19:54] energy usage of the proposed
[1:19:57] whatever it is will stay the
[1:19:58] same. He wants to speed up
[1:20:01] rezoning for some project but
[1:20:03] he did not specify what and he
[1:20:05] wants it to pass before
[1:20:06] regulations. I would like to
[1:20:08] urge this council to put a
[1:20:11] pause on this rezoning until
[1:20:13] after regulations are passed.
[1:20:15] he mentioned bringing into
[1:20:17] modern times and tax revenue
[1:20:19] investment we can also generate
[1:20:21] tax revenue from increasing a
[1:20:23] corporate tax and on
[1:20:25] billionaires. Yeah that's it.
[1:20:27] thank you. Thank you, mr.
[1:20:30] speaker. When I go to public
[1:20:31] comment brian it will be
[1:20:33] followed by alice. So brian
[1:20:36] at home be prepared. Go ahead.
[1:20:39] hello. >> there has been a lot
[1:20:41] of secrecy around the
[1:20:43] development of the data centers
[1:20:44] over the past several months if
[1:20:46] not years. At first it was. Are
[1:20:49] there any applicants? No, there
[1:20:51] aren't any applicants. But
[1:20:52] here's the applicant. He's
[1:20:53] going to speak for five
[1:20:54] minutes. Clearly data centers
[1:20:56] are being discussed and
[1:20:58] developed outside of public
[1:21:00] meetings and private
[1:21:01] conversations without public
[1:21:03] input. Rezoning is already
[1:21:04] being moved to the table
[1:21:05] without any applicants without
[1:21:08] any applications. The public
[1:21:10] needs to have not just input.
[1:21:13] they need to have decision on
[1:21:14] whether data centers are built
[1:21:15] in >> their communities. Just
[1:21:17] >> saying oh we're going to
[1:21:18] have a public input that can
[1:21:20] mean a lot of things. I've been
[1:21:21] part of public input sessions.
[1:21:23] they're very small. They don't
[1:21:25] do a lot and it's not
[1:21:27] guaranteed that public input
[1:21:28] will be taken into account. So
[1:21:30] please hold off on rezoning
[1:21:32] this. Thank you. >> thank you,
[1:21:37] brian. First of all, if you use
[1:21:44] a cell phone or you youtube or
[1:21:45] anything else or stuff like
[1:21:47] this if you're using a data
[1:21:49] center. So we eventually have
[1:21:51] to find a way to I agree it
[1:21:53] shouldn't have been put on the
[1:21:54] consent calendar. Thank you for
[1:21:55] pulling that off you. When I
[1:21:58] saw that it was being pulled
[1:21:59] off and the consent calendar I
[1:22:01] almost fell out of my chair
[1:22:02] here because usually I don't
[1:22:04] think people read the letters
[1:22:06] and that's something I wish I I
[1:22:09] don't know. Toni has a hard job
[1:22:10] so I appreciate what you're
[1:22:11] trying to do. My email said
[1:22:14] that and everybody else that
[1:22:14] far better than I did. Thank
[1:22:16] you >> alice followed by alec I
[1:22:26] good afternoon may or may
[1:22:27] hammond council members this is
[1:22:29] alice kaufman for green
[1:22:30] foothills and I want to bring
[1:22:32] your attention to an issue that
[1:22:34] has not been mentioned yet and
[1:22:36] we mentioned it in a letter
[1:22:37] that we submitted but with all
[1:22:38] the public comment you may not
[1:22:39] have seen it. So there is a new
[1:22:41] state law sb 131 which creates
[1:22:44] a total exemption from sequel
[1:22:46] for advanced manufacturing
[1:22:48] facilities but only if they are
[1:22:50] located on industrially zoned
[1:22:51] parcels. So under the current
[1:22:53] pd zoning this total exemption
[1:22:56] does not apply but once it's
[1:22:57] rezone to industrial park it
[1:22:59] would apply and this advanced
[1:23:01] manufacturing facility
[1:23:03] exemption is an extremely broad
[1:23:04] and vague category of uses. It
[1:23:06] includes metal recycling,
[1:23:08] semiconductor manufacturing,
[1:23:09] lithium battery manufacturing,
[1:23:11] aerospace and defense
[1:23:13] manufacturing and more. So this
[1:23:15] is why we're asking for this
[1:23:16] item to move forward. We really
[1:23:18] want to work with staff to
[1:23:20] figure out a way to make sure
[1:23:21] that square will continue to
[1:23:23] apply to a project as was
[1:23:25] stated previously that it would
[1:23:26] apply. Thank you >> alec
[1:23:29] followed by dashiell. >> hello.
[1:23:35] I support permanently
[1:23:36] protecting the open space
[1:23:38] surrounding the former ibm site
[1:23:39] but that is not all that this
[1:23:41] rezoning would do. While
[1:23:42] approximately 565 acres would
[1:23:45] receive the open space zoning,
[1:23:46] another 35 acres would receive
[1:23:48] broader industrial park zoning
[1:23:50] which could open the door to
[1:23:52] manufacturing advanced
[1:23:53] manufacturing or even a data
[1:23:54] center with a special use
[1:23:56] permit. At the same time the
[1:23:58] city would eliminate more than
[1:23:59] 40 years of site specific plans
[1:24:01] development controls without
[1:24:03] telling the public exactly what
[1:24:04] protections would be lost. We
[1:24:06] also do not know whether the
[1:24:07] city ever fulfilled its
[1:24:09] commitment to secure permanent
[1:24:10] legal protection from the
[1:24:11] surrounding open space, open
[1:24:13] space zoning alone is not
[1:24:15] permanent. There's no
[1:24:16] development application
[1:24:17] pending. There's no
[1:24:17] demonstrated urgency and once
[1:24:19] these protections are removed
[1:24:20] recovering them is difficult.
[1:24:22] please remove this item from
[1:24:24] the consents and delay rezoning
[1:24:25] until the existing protections
[1:24:27] environmental consequences
[1:24:28] access road restrictions and
[1:24:30] permanent preservation of the
[1:24:31] open space are foley addressed.
[1:24:33] thank you. From an olive
[1:24:34] garden resident >> dashiell
[1:24:37] followed by linda hutchins. >>
[1:24:40] hello, my name is daniel leeds.
[1:24:42] I'm a stint as a resident and
[1:24:43] the conservation coordinator
[1:24:44] for the sierra club loma prieta
[1:24:46] chapter. We ask you >> to defer
[1:24:48] rezoning this property as many
[1:24:50] community members have already
[1:24:51] told you. We're concerned that
[1:24:52] rezoning this land to
[1:24:53] industrial park could lead to
[1:24:54] data centers and other harmful
[1:24:56] industrial uses to be built in
[1:24:58] this really sensitive area. The
[1:25:00] city and our communities
[1:25:01] deserve full disclosure and
[1:25:02] consideration of the legal,
[1:25:03] environmental and land use
[1:25:05] consequences of this rezoning.
[1:25:06] more community engagement and
[1:25:08] disclosure is needed at a
[1:25:09] minimum and you know the city
[1:25:11] really needs to put its foot
[1:25:13] forward and disclose its behind
[1:25:15] the scenes work that it's doing
[1:25:17] on data centers and other
[1:25:18] industrial projects because we
[1:25:20] know that there's a lot
[1:25:20] happening >> that you just
[1:25:22] simply aren't telling us until
[1:25:23] it's too late. So the city
[1:25:25] needs to do a better job
[1:25:26] of disclosing that internal
[1:25:27] work that it's engaging in >>
[1:25:28] every week. Thank you. >>
[1:25:34] darina followed by alice. >>
[1:25:38] hi. This >> is serena. I'm a
[1:25:42] san jose resident. I'm from
[1:25:43] district six but I wanted to
[1:25:47] come and just say I'm I'm in
[1:25:50] support of open space and
[1:25:52] protecting habitat and
[1:25:53] especially this area is a very
[1:25:55] botanically interesting area
[1:25:58] because go and experience the
[1:25:59] land. I mean if you if you're
[1:26:01] standing out there and open and
[1:26:02] you can see the poppies on this
[1:26:04] hillside, it's incredible. And
[1:26:06] I'm concerned about industrial
[1:26:08] development in this area and
[1:26:11] specifically datacenters and
[1:26:13] how is that going to impact the
[1:26:15] habitat and just echoing what
[1:26:18] we're ours was saying about
[1:26:20] ceca and you know these
[1:26:22] loopholes that people are
[1:26:23] trying to get through so please
[1:26:25] protect open space and defer
[1:26:28] the rezoning. Thank you alice
[1:26:35] >> followed by dave. >> hello.
[1:26:41] can you hear me? Yes. Okay. I'm
[1:26:44] highly skeptical. The claim
[1:26:46] made by the proponent of this
[1:26:47] rezoning that school will be
[1:26:49] applied when a specific project
[1:26:52] is considered. No doubt
[1:26:54] developers will take advantage
[1:26:56] of the new school loophole in
[1:26:58] the new school exemption that
[1:26:59] was opened by sb 131 for the
[1:27:03] very poorly defined category
[1:27:05] advanced manufacturing to build
[1:27:07] without any sequel review. The
[1:27:10] council should remove this item
[1:27:12] from the consent calendar. This
[1:27:14] has received only the most
[1:27:16] cursory consideration and do
[1:27:18] not make a rezoning definition
[1:27:20] decision until thorough study
[1:27:22] and solicitation of community
[1:27:25] community input has been done.
[1:27:29] thank you dave followed by
[1:27:34] linda. >> dave, are you there?
[1:27:50] okay, I'm going to go to linda.
[1:27:55] good afternoon. Council this is
[1:27:57] linda hutchins and with mothers
[1:27:58] out front silicon valley we ask
[1:28:01] you not to defer the decision
[1:28:02] on rezoning. Thank you to
[1:28:04] councilmember casey for pulling
[1:28:05] this item and the council her
[1:28:06] committee for inquiring about
[1:28:07] deferring the rezoning. This is
[1:28:09] too consequential a decision to
[1:28:11] rush. It's essential that you
[1:28:13] at first apparently protect the
[1:28:14] open space since open space
[1:28:15] zoning is not permanent. Don't
[1:28:17] be fooled by reassurances that
[1:28:19] it's not really a zoning
[1:28:20] change. Research in parking is
[1:28:22] much less impactful on habitat
[1:28:23] than other industrial uses. I
[1:28:25] want to echo alice kaufman's
[1:28:27] concern about sb 131 the state
[1:28:30] law that exempts all quote
[1:28:32] advanced manufacturing
[1:28:34] facilities from sequa. This is
[1:28:37] opening the pandora's box.
[1:28:38] don't let that happen. There's
[1:28:40] no rush. Take your time to
[1:28:41] totally understand the impacts
[1:28:43] of your decisions. I want to
[1:28:45] conclude with some comments
[1:28:46] that you know from open space
[1:28:48] stories don't have time to
[1:28:49] finish and her comment
[1:28:50] basically me because the
[1:28:52] current zoning is consistent
[1:28:53] with the general plan and that
[1:28:55] it allows us the uses with the
[1:28:57] designation seek review as
[1:28:59] necessary for you to even
[1:29:00] change the zoning of the
[1:29:01] status. >> sherry followed by
[1:29:05] blair
[1:29:15] as you heard me. Yes. Hi, this
[1:29:18] is nick limehouse with the
[1:29:20] santa clarita valley bird
[1:29:22] alliance. We sent you a joint
[1:29:25] letter with expressed several
[1:29:26] concerns and we're remain
[1:29:28] concerned. I would like to
[1:29:30] reiterate and emphasize the
[1:29:32] comments made here regarding
[1:29:33] the impacts of sb 131. This law
[1:29:37] exemptions and advancement
[1:29:39] factoring projects that are
[1:29:40] proposed on industrial lease on
[1:29:42] land from secure and this is
[1:29:44] very consequential for the
[1:29:45] community. Both the
[1:29:47] environmental community but
[1:29:49] also all the residents and all
[1:29:50] the wildlife and open space in
[1:29:52] that area. I would like to
[1:29:54] point out that the general plan
[1:29:56] specifically allows pd zoning
[1:29:59] to continue or to be on places
[1:30:01] that have unusual
[1:30:02] characteristics and the ibm
[1:30:05] campus does have unusual
[1:30:07] character. This has been is why
[1:30:10] so many people are here even
[1:30:11] though this was supposed to be
[1:30:13] a consent item. So robust
[1:30:16] community outreach is needed.
[1:30:20] there followed by sue >> hi
[1:30:23] where beekman. I hope I don't
[1:30:25] step on anyone's toes to try to
[1:30:27] address kind of the mechanics
[1:30:29] of this item. The planning
[1:30:31] director seems to be saying
[1:30:32] that you guys need to have a >>
[1:30:35] a review process, a permit
[1:30:39] process in order for an open
[1:30:41] democratic process to take
[1:30:42] place where council person
[1:30:44] command other council persons
[1:30:45] may feel that this needs a bit
[1:30:47] more discussion and time and we
[1:30:49] can't and it can't be right. So
[1:30:51] a real good luck that I'm on
[1:30:52] the side of this item sort
[1:30:54] of item not be rushed and we
[1:30:55] work towards an open public
[1:30:57] meeting process to really
[1:30:58] decide the future of digital
[1:31:00] centers for ourselves. The
[1:31:02] zoning questions of this item I
[1:31:04] suppose kind of like the flea
[1:31:05] market item where we have a
[1:31:06] community process to help build
[1:31:08] what can be the future of this
[1:31:10] area and not go straight to the
[1:31:12] permit process in order to
[1:31:13] solve the issue. Thank you >>
[1:31:17] sue followed by roland. Hi. I
[1:31:23] lived within half a mile of the
[1:31:25] entrance to this property for
[1:31:27] over 30 years. I'd like to
[1:31:29] point out that if the rezoning
[1:31:31] request for ibm is granted
[1:31:33] today the data center
[1:31:35] application can then be quickly
[1:31:37] submitted before new rules are
[1:31:39] announced which will exempt the
[1:31:41] data center from the regulatory
[1:31:43] oversight. The city is
[1:31:44] currently formalizing. Please
[1:31:47] delay defer consideration
[1:31:51] of this rezoning request until
[1:31:53] after new data center rules
[1:31:55] have been completed and are in
[1:31:57] force. For development on this
[1:31:59] property really needs to be
[1:32:00] done with full disclosure
[1:32:02] community input and clear
[1:32:04] rules. This is an inappropriate
[1:32:07] forum for the magnitude
[1:32:09] of issues that this land use
[1:32:11] and its history represent to
[1:32:12] the public and to the city.
[1:32:15] please defer this decision.
[1:32:18] this needs to be made with
[1:32:19] careful consideration and input
[1:32:21] from almaden valley residents.
[1:32:24] roland >> followed by connie.
[1:32:28] good afternoon >> mayor and
[1:32:29] council. My name is roland. I
[1:32:31] live in santa teresa one mile
[1:32:33] from bernal road. I actually
[1:32:36] support the applicants request
[1:32:38] but I also support everybody
[1:32:40] else's request for hearing this
[1:32:43] at a later date. I used to work
[1:32:46] for ibm. This research center
[1:32:51] was used as an r&d and
[1:32:53] laboratory for the last 40
[1:32:55] years. It is supported by a
[1:32:57] massive data center from day
[1:32:59] one but nobody outside ibm
[1:33:02] knows about it because the data
[1:33:03] center is actually inside the
[1:33:05] building. Now with regards to
[1:33:08] cooling, these data centers
[1:33:10] were so powerful that 40 years
[1:33:12] ago ibm used them at night to
[1:33:15] burn in thermal conduction
[1:33:17] module because they were the
[1:33:18] first computers that used water
[1:33:20] for cooling. Last thing I would
[1:33:22] like a little row to be
[1:33:24] reopened so that we can drive
[1:33:26] from santa teresa to almaden
[1:33:27] valley. Thank >> you connie.
[1:33:32] followed by jessica. Hello,
[1:33:37] my name is connie. Good
[1:33:38] morning, mayor and council
[1:33:39] members. I urge council to
[1:33:41] defer the rezoning of the
[1:33:43] former ibm almaden research
[1:33:45] center and I ask for extensive
[1:33:48] community outreach. It is clear
[1:33:50] that many development groups
[1:33:52] have been discussing ibm's
[1:33:54] sale. Therefore it is critical
[1:33:56] to allow community input as
[1:33:58] well and to take the steps to
[1:34:01] permanently protect the area.
[1:34:03] as it was originally planned,
[1:34:05] many people have spoken on this
[1:34:07] and have left you with enough
[1:34:09] information to realize that you
[1:34:12] really need to stop and think
[1:34:14] before you make a decision on
[1:34:17] this. Thank you, jessica.
[1:34:22] followed by dr. Carla jessica
[1:34:30] martinez. >> hello? Can you
[1:34:32] hear me? Yes, hi. This just I'm
[1:34:35] here to ask for this to be
[1:34:37] postponed after hearing the
[1:34:38] gentleman from ibm speak.
[1:34:40] speak. It is more clear to slow
[1:34:43] this process down and there is
[1:34:44] no need to rush. We have
[1:34:46] already seen what is happening
[1:34:48] to our city by the sale of the
[1:34:50] land of great america. Just
[1:34:52] like that land with the what do
[1:34:55] you call it the proposal the
[1:34:57] person that bought it most
[1:34:58] likely will turn that into a
[1:35:00] data center or warehouses. We
[1:35:02] don't need to sell this land
[1:35:04] and give up what beauty we
[1:35:06] have. Thank you, dr. Carlo
[1:35:11] followed by correct. >> >>
[1:35:17] hello? Can you hear me? Yes.
[1:35:20] okay. Yes. So I am a something
[1:35:23] , isn't it? And I'm definitely
[1:35:25] opposed to the data centers and
[1:35:28] pushing this through now we
[1:35:29] already know just looking
[1:35:31] at the news in different cities
[1:35:33] that are currently have data
[1:35:35] centers that they are posing
[1:35:38] air pollution issues, energy
[1:35:39] consumption emission issues,
[1:35:41] water consumption issues,
[1:35:43] public health issues. So we
[1:35:45] don't need to make any rash
[1:35:46] decisions we need to everyone
[1:35:48] have a say and what why not
[1:35:52] just use keep the land as it is
[1:35:56] like that's what we need to do
[1:35:57] and thank you >> kat >>
[1:36:01] followed by jill follow. Can
[1:36:05] you guys hear me? Yes. Hi, I'm
[1:36:08] katrina. I'm also known as cat
[1:36:10] and I urge the city council to
[1:36:12] defer this item and prioritize
[1:36:14] the long term well-being of san
[1:36:15] jose residents over short term
[1:36:17] economic gains or create
[1:36:19] lasting environmental
[1:36:20] degradation, health impacts and
[1:36:22] water scarcity that our
[1:36:23] community cannot afford. I
[1:36:25] respectfully demand that the
[1:36:26] council to explicitly exclude
[1:36:28] data center development from
[1:36:29] this rezoning decision until
[1:36:31] the city has set in stone
[1:36:32] standards with legally binding
[1:36:34] enforcement delving into the
[1:36:36] cumulative public health impact
[1:36:37] analysis of planned and
[1:36:38] proposed data centers and
[1:36:40] established and has established
[1:36:42] community protection with
[1:36:44] legally binding consequences as
[1:36:45] core requirements. Thank you
[1:36:48] for listening and thank you for
[1:36:49] your time today. >> thank you
[1:36:52] jill followed by dave. I worked
[1:37:01] >> at ibm starting back in
[1:37:03] 1989. I was at the actually
[1:37:05] at the santa teresa laboratory
[1:37:07] but we had frequent meetings
[1:37:09] over and sometimes over
[1:37:10] dominant plus so some friends
[1:37:12] were over there. We'd go over
[1:37:14] there a lot and go hiking, take
[1:37:16] walks in that area. >> the
[1:37:18] thing is I want to point out
[1:37:19] that even if it's quote only
[1:37:21] end quote a 35 acre area that
[1:37:24] there talking about presently
[1:37:26] for industrial use you can't
[1:37:28] have the >> road that's there
[1:37:29] now is a road a two lane road
[1:37:31] for ordinary vehicles.
[1:37:32] obviously if there's a new
[1:37:35] development there, new
[1:37:37] industrial uses the road would
[1:37:38] be completely would have to
[1:37:40] change and widen and everything
[1:37:42] like that plus I just want to
[1:37:44] point out it's a foolish idea
[1:37:46] to have a foolish place for
[1:37:48] industrial development is right
[1:37:50] in the middle of hundreds
[1:37:51] of acres of open space. Thank
[1:37:52] you very much >> dave followed
[1:37:56] by vince venkata dave I your
[1:38:02] side I can hear you this time.
[1:38:04] >> okay thank you. Sorry about
[1:38:06] that. They pushed a resident
[1:38:07] of the santa teresa
[1:38:08] neighborhood from the late 80s
[1:38:10] until 93 when I became a
[1:38:12] resident of almaden valley in
[1:38:14] 99 I had conversations with
[1:38:16] my council member and probably
[1:38:17] eric and participated in
[1:38:20] community meetings about a
[1:38:21] proposal for the development
[1:38:23] of some of the ibm's open
[1:38:24] space. The sale was canceled
[1:38:27] when it became clear that ibm
[1:38:29] had committed to a permanent
[1:38:31] open space restriction as part
[1:38:33] of the almaden research center
[1:38:35] development the council
[1:38:36] committed to permanent open
[1:38:39] space in perpetuity. It's
[1:38:42] critical in terms of public
[1:38:44] governance protection of the
[1:38:46] serpentine habitat, historic
[1:38:47] bar and rock walls,
[1:38:49] contribution to the quality
[1:38:51] of the adjacent santa clara
[1:38:52] teresa or santa teresa county
[1:38:54] park that the open space
[1:38:56] remains open space in
[1:38:58] perpetuity. Please defer. Thank
[1:39:01] you very much >> venkata >>
[1:39:03] online followed by roberta
[1:39:05] moore in person. So roberta
[1:39:09] go ahead and come on down and
[1:39:13] venkata go ahead. I see you're
[1:39:18] on muted but we're not hearing
[1:39:19] you. Okay. I'm >> going to
[1:39:27] go to roberta moore in person.
[1:39:33] hi. Thank you. I'm roberta
[1:39:35] moore from d-10. And first I
[1:39:38] want to acknowledge you for
[1:39:40] setting standards for
[1:39:41] environmental protections with
[1:39:45] air data centers. I just want
[1:39:48] some facts 800 and >> seven
[1:39:50] 160,000,116 million gallons >>
[1:39:54] of water per year and
[1:39:56] 876,000,000 kilowatt >> hours
[1:40:00] per year. So we have electrical
[1:40:03] issues, water issues and we
[1:40:05] have traffic issues out there.
[1:40:07] so >> please make if you ignore
[1:40:10] all this feedback please make
[1:40:13] the company pay for this and
[1:40:16] fix these problems and please
[1:40:19] >> require they pay for >> in
[1:40:24] house no water cooling system.
[1:40:27] thank you >> katherine matheson
[1:40:31] come on down
[1:40:48] . >> hello. I've lived all
[1:40:53] my life in cnn's say since 1950
[1:40:57] we've lived in the same house
[1:40:58] and in the rose garden and I
[1:41:02] hate to see this proposal that
[1:41:05] you're presenting happen and
[1:41:08] destroy our historical
[1:41:10] neighbors. There's so many
[1:41:12] other ideas. I have a degree in
[1:41:15] biology, ag and forestry and a
[1:41:17] master's in landscape
[1:41:18] architecture and helped
[1:41:19] singapore create their gardens
[1:41:21] city so I know what I'm talking
[1:41:22] about >> different ideas put
[1:41:26] housing >> under name >> I'm
[1:41:29] sorry this is >> just the ibm
[1:41:31] site I think you're talking
[1:41:33] about the land use site and
[1:41:34] we're taking up later today I'm
[1:41:36] talking about what >> the this
[1:41:39] item we're on is the ibm site
[1:41:41] and the potential rezoning
[1:41:42] of that one site. I think you
[1:41:43] may be speaking to the general
[1:41:45] plan review >> item. Oh, okay.
[1:41:47] so that'll be coming up and I
[1:41:49] throw >> down you can come back
[1:41:52] >> up when we get to that I if
[1:41:53] you're speaking to the ibm item
[1:41:55] I'll give you the rest of your
[1:41:56] time. I just you were talking
[1:41:57] about housing and landscape I
[1:41:59] think this is probably not the
[1:42:00] ibm item >> I did great. Okay.
[1:42:06] we'll come back to you when we
[1:42:07] get to that item. Thank you,
[1:42:10] toni. Do we have more public
[1:42:11] speakers? So back >> to
[1:42:12] council. Okay. All right. Well
[1:42:14] >> thank you to everyone who
[1:42:15] weighed in. We're coming back
[1:42:17] to council. I did just want to
[1:42:18] 
[1:42:19] referenced it for those who may
[1:42:21] not be following it as closely
[1:42:23] specifically on data >>
[1:42:25] centers, the council has
[1:42:26] instructed city staff to
[1:42:28] initiate a process over the
[1:42:31] rest of this year of community
[1:42:32] engagement starting with a
[1:42:33] listening session this this
[1:42:36] week and the in fact tomorrow
[1:42:39] evening where well we already
[1:42:41] have some of the strictest
[1:42:42] standards in the country. The
[1:42:44] idea is in every category
[1:42:45] of concern can san jose be the
[1:42:47] national leader and have the
[1:42:48] highest standards and really
[1:42:50] ensure that we're protecting
[1:42:52] all of the interests the
[1:42:53] community's expressed on the
[1:42:55] specific site which is the ibm
[1:42:59] facility out on harry road? I
[1:43:01] do want to come back to the
[1:43:02] council member for district ten
[1:43:04] and give him the floor once
[1:43:07] again and we'll continue with
[1:43:08] the council deliberation.
[1:43:11] councilmember casey thank >>
[1:43:12] you, mayor. I want to thank
[1:43:13] everybody that came out and you
[1:43:14] folks on zoom as well. I know
[1:43:15] this is an important piece
[1:43:18] of property all the property is
[1:43:20] important to san jose but the
[1:43:21] open space component and the
[1:43:22] fact that this is located in a
[1:43:24] beautiful area I understand the
[1:43:25] concern but I just want to ask
[1:43:28] staff or the attorneys this is
[1:43:30] an eventuality in terms of us
[1:43:32] having to do this conforming
[1:43:33] rezoning. If we don't do it
[1:43:34] now, it's going to happen
[1:43:35] eventually anyway correctly
[1:43:37] correct. Sorry. Yes, that is
[1:43:42] correct. So there's no stopping
[1:43:43] this >> not at this moment. But
[1:43:48] given >> that, is there a way
[1:43:50] that we can somehow direct
[1:43:51] staff to pursue the easement
[1:43:54] for the conservation easement,
[1:43:56] have that be part of this
[1:43:57] proceeding >> so we can
[1:43:59] absolutely pursue that? It
[1:44:00] requires us to work obviously
[1:44:02] with the property owner and the
[1:44:03] property owners be willing to
[1:44:05] offer up that easement but it's
[1:44:06] certainly something we can
[1:44:07] explore with them. Eric can we
[1:44:11] do you mind if I pull eric now
[1:44:12] eric you're nodding your head
[1:44:13] that the property owner would
[1:44:14] be open to pursuing an easement
[1:44:15] on the open space which is I
[1:44:28] just want to >> be clear that
[1:44:29] we're in a transition period,
[1:44:30] right? Ibm still owns the
[1:44:31] property, right? So we can't be
[1:44:33] making commitments for ibm's
[1:44:34] property. But should the
[1:44:36] property change ownership that
[1:44:38] >> the new owners would be
[1:44:41] interested in having that
[1:44:42] discussion obviously. Okay. I
[1:44:49] think the issue here though is
[1:44:51] as was stated, this is an
[1:44:52] eventuality anyway. This is
[1:44:54] something that's coming down
[1:44:55] the pike. I'm interested in
[1:44:58] having the property >> pay
[1:45:00] taxes be developed into
[1:45:01] something that's going to be
[1:45:02] productive for us economically
[1:45:04] rather than just sitting there
[1:45:05] dormant. There's nothing I've
[1:45:07] heard here so far from staff
[1:45:09] and the attorneys that this
[1:45:10] open space is somehow in
[1:45:12] jeopardy or that we've
[1:45:13] foreclosed on any opportunity
[1:45:14] to have that easement at some
[1:45:16] point in time. Right now this
[1:45:18] decision preserves the open
[1:45:20] space as is. So I'm not sure
[1:45:22] what the concern is at the
[1:45:24] moment from the community. And
[1:45:27] in addition to that we're not
[1:45:28] actually having a conversation
[1:45:29] about data centers right now.
[1:45:31] this is a step towards it. I
[1:45:33] want to acknowledge that. But
[1:45:35] we're not having a data center
[1:45:36] conversation at the moment.
[1:45:37] we're just doing what the state
[1:45:39] is required of us in terms
[1:45:41] of conforming to zoning to meet
[1:45:43] our guidelines or general plan.
[1:45:44] so >> I with that I'll make a
[1:45:46] motion to support or the the
[1:45:49] rezoning I >> think.
[1:45:53] councilmember we have a second
[1:45:54] from councilor cohen. Can I ask
[1:45:56] steph just on that point
[1:45:57] of information, can you expound
[1:46:00] a little bit for the public on
[1:46:02] why this is an eventuality just
[1:46:06] in terms of realigning the
[1:46:07] zoning it would be helpful if
[1:46:09] you all we are in here
[1:46:10] constantly doing rezonings
[1:46:12] because of state law. Can you
[1:46:13] please share more about what we
[1:46:15] are mandated by state law to do
[1:46:17] and what we're not mandated to
[1:46:18] do? >> so there is state law sb
[1:46:22] 1333 that requires for charter
[1:46:24] cities conforming rezoning in
[1:46:26] alignment between the zoning
[1:46:28] and the general plan. So the
[1:46:29] city has been taking different
[1:46:31] batches of sites across the
[1:46:33] city and bringing them before
[1:46:34] council to align our zoning and
[1:46:36] the general plan since this
[1:46:38] application is proposed by a
[1:46:40] private entity we have you
[1:46:42] know, brought this up as part
[1:46:44] of that application but
[1:46:45] ultimately the city is tasked
[1:46:47] to to have conforming zoning
[1:46:49] throughout the city. Okay. And
[1:46:51] then and I'll turn to other
[1:46:52] colleagues who are speaking
[1:46:53] just a moment. I'm guessing all
[1:46:57] of us want to see the open
[1:46:59] space. I know councilor casey
[1:47:00] cares deeply about this, want
[1:47:02] to see the open space there
[1:47:03] that ibm intended to keep open
[1:47:06] space forever more see that
[1:47:08] protected. Can you share a
[1:47:10] little more about if we do move
[1:47:13] forward with this conforming
[1:47:15] rezoning the protections for
[1:47:17] open space and what would
[1:47:18] actually share a little >> more
[1:47:20] I heard a concern about it.
[1:47:22] what would that process look
[1:47:23] like? Should someone say a
[1:47:24] future owner try to change
[1:47:26] that? That's zoning. Yes,
[1:47:29] absolutely. So if there was a
[1:47:30] future proposal to change the
[1:47:32] zoning for that open space, it
[1:47:34] would also need a general plan
[1:47:35] amendment first of all. So that
[1:47:37] is that does require councilor
[1:47:38] approval. It requires
[1:47:39] environmental review and the
[1:47:41] due process so public input to
[1:47:44] that through that process. In
[1:47:46] addition the the open space
[1:47:50] zoning that's currently in the
[1:47:52] zoning in the plan development
[1:47:53] zoning is actually less
[1:47:55] restrictive than the city's
[1:47:56] general plan open space
[1:47:57] designation. Can you say that
[1:47:59] again so that the existing open
[1:48:01] space zoning is less than the
[1:48:03] pd in the pd is less
[1:48:05] restrictive than our general
[1:48:06] plan? Open space designation
[1:48:08] because the general plan
[1:48:09] requires that any structures in
[1:48:11] an open space designee ation
[1:48:13] has to come forward with a
[1:48:14] conditional use permit. I >>
[1:48:16] see so that the rezoning the
[1:48:19] portion going to open space
[1:48:20] actually would be more
[1:48:21] restrictive than what it
[1:48:22] currently is, correct? Correct.
[1:48:24] okay. If anything >> I would
[1:48:26] 
[1:48:28] to those who are deeply
[1:48:29] concerned although I would say
[1:48:31] if anything the trend has been
[1:48:32] toward creating and protecting
[1:48:34] more open space, not less. That
[1:48:36] has been the steady trend now
[1:48:38] for many years. Okay, thanks
[1:48:41] for clarifying. I think that
[1:48:42] added some helpful context. Let
[1:48:45] me turn now to other colleagues
[1:48:47] council our committee. Thank
[1:48:50] you so much to all who came out
[1:48:53] to give your thoughts on this
[1:48:55] item and thank you to
[1:48:56] my colleague
[1:48:57] councilmember casey who who
[1:48:59] leads this. >> you know, one
[1:49:01] of the things that I am aware
[1:49:02] is while the open space there
[1:49:05] are some protection, the only
[1:49:07] way to ensure >> it really is
[1:49:08] if you do have a permanent
[1:49:10] conservation easement on it.
[1:49:12] and I just want to get
[1:49:13] clarification on that point. We
[1:49:15] cannot require an applicant as
[1:49:18] a as a part of their rezoning
[1:49:22] to require a conservation
[1:49:24] easement on something that has
[1:49:26] been known to be permanent open
[1:49:29] space. Is that a question for
[1:49:33] the city attorney or yeah, well
[1:49:35] >> whoever whoever wants to
[1:49:36] give me the right answer. So
[1:49:40] the easement would require both
[1:49:42] parties to agree to come to
[1:49:44] some agreement so we cannot
[1:49:45] require okay so >> we can't we
[1:49:48] can't make that as a
[1:49:49] requirement of the rezoning.
[1:49:51] correct. Okay. Okay. That that
[1:49:53] makes it very clear. You know,
[1:49:55] I think that it is unfortunate
[1:49:58] that in this circumstance we're
[1:50:00] not allowing more time. I would
[1:50:02] have liked to have seen more
[1:50:04] time as was requested by some
[1:50:07] of the letters that we received
[1:50:10] because I think that, you know,
[1:50:12] while yes, we want to update it
[1:50:15] and all of that, I think that
[1:50:16] having conversations with the
[1:50:18] community of what is being done
[1:50:21] is appropriate right? I mean
[1:50:23] this application is not going
[1:50:24] to turn around or we're not
[1:50:26] going to have something there,
[1:50:28] you know, like right away. So
[1:50:30] you know, I do think it's
[1:50:31] important to to have that
[1:50:34] community input. I mean even if
[1:50:35] it's like two weeks or what
[1:50:37] have you simply because it
[1:50:39] allows the community to better
[1:50:41] understand where we're going.
[1:50:43] so I will not be supporting the
[1:50:46] motion unless
[1:50:48] councilmember casey wants to
[1:50:50] wait two weeks to allow people
[1:50:53] to get an understanding further
[1:50:55] understanding I was not aware
[1:50:58] of sb 131 so I just think that
[1:51:02] it's important to have that
[1:51:04] community input. But I don't
[1:51:07] know if you would allow a two
[1:51:09] week hold off. >> I appreciate
[1:51:12] community input and I don't
[1:51:15] think bad news doesn't age well
[1:51:16] and that community input is not
[1:51:18] going to actually change
[1:51:19] anything. I don't want to be
[1:51:20] performative about it and just
[1:51:22] give folks an opportunity to
[1:51:23] vent when they're not going to
[1:51:24] actually change anything. Scuse
[1:51:27] me ridiculous. >> so please
[1:51:30] don't boo or cheer during
[1:51:33] council deliberations are off
[1:51:34] to ask you to leave the
[1:51:35] chamber. Good
[1:51:37] councilmember yeah. So just for
[1:51:37] that reason I mean it's not
[1:51:38] going to change anything. This
[1:51:39] is an eventuality that's going
[1:51:40] to happen so I appreciate and
[1:51:42] we did receive the input but I
[1:51:44] don't see how that input is
[1:51:45] going to actually change the
[1:51:47] ultimate decision. Yeah, no I
[1:51:49] understand. I thought that that
[1:51:51] would be helpful. I also think
[1:51:54] that in the meantime the the
[1:51:57] applicant and the owners would
[1:52:00] perhaps think about I know we
[1:52:02] can't require it but would
[1:52:03] think about you know what might
[1:52:06] be possible in terms of a
[1:52:08] voluntary conservation easement
[1:52:10] that way they you know for sure
[1:52:11] right for those coming in those
[1:52:13] going out so yes but thank you.
[1:52:16] thank you for your thoughts.
[1:52:18] but I >> also think there's an
[1:52:19] opportunity if they do come
[1:52:20] back for the industrial portion
[1:52:22] to have that conversation
[1:52:24] before we approve whatever they
[1:52:25] decide to do with the
[1:52:26] industrial part, we can have
[1:52:27] that be a condition and have
[1:52:29] that conversation at that time
[1:52:31] which I think is more
[1:52:31] appropriate than at this moment
[1:52:32] . Thank you. Thanks >> council
[1:52:37] member let's go to councilor
[1:52:39] compost next. >> thank you
[1:52:43] mayor and thank you for
[1:52:44] my colleagues cousin casey for
[1:52:47] pulling this item.
[1:52:48] councilmember camejo for your
[1:52:49] questions and the members
[1:52:51] of the community who came out
[1:52:52] to engage with us on this item.
[1:52:55] I just have two questions that
[1:52:56] I want to ask staff and the
[1:52:58] first is for more information
[1:53:00] about sb 131 and the to
[1:53:02] exemptions for certain
[1:53:04] industrial uses >> I can start
[1:53:10] and then I'll see if david
[1:53:11] kianna principal planner wants
[1:53:13] to chime in. So sb 131 went
[1:53:15] into effect last july and
[1:53:18] allows for that. The state
[1:53:20] essentially has allowed for
[1:53:22] exemptions for advanced
[1:53:23] manufacturing uses from the
[1:53:26] california environmental
[1:53:26] quality act. So from
[1:53:28] environmental review and so
[1:53:30] this particular site how sb 131
[1:53:33] could potentially affect it is
[1:53:35] that if the ip rezoning is
[1:53:38] approved then there could be
[1:53:40] certain very limited advanced
[1:53:41] manufacturing uses within that
[1:53:43] ip zoning table that are
[1:53:46] allowed that may be exempt from
[1:53:47] those requirements. However,
[1:53:49] the general plan the ip general
[1:53:52] plan designation at a
[1:53:53] programmatic level already
[1:53:54] allows for those uses. David >>
[1:53:58] and >> good afternoon
[1:54:00] councilmember campos david
[1:54:01] conference will plan on the
[1:54:02] city's environment review team
[1:54:03] so sb 131 as I said is a
[1:54:07] statutory submission approved
[1:54:09] by the state that exempts a
[1:54:10] very targeted group of land use
[1:54:15] actually projects for it under
[1:54:17] the umbrella of advanced
[1:54:18] manufacturing. It's things like
[1:54:20] nanotechnology, biotechnology
[1:54:23] you know research and
[1:54:23] development involving some sort
[1:54:25] of manufacturing. It's very
[1:54:27] limited. I do want to mention
[1:54:30] and reiterate that it does not
[1:54:32] include most of the land uses
[1:54:34] in the wild or the industrial
[1:54:36] park zoning districts such as
[1:54:37] offices and warehouses and data
[1:54:39] centers. Those are not within
[1:54:41] >> the group of projects >>
[1:54:43] that would be exempt under sb
[1:54:45] 131 statutory exemption. So
[1:54:48] projects that proceed if there
[1:54:50] was to be a project that was to
[1:54:51] proceed on the site under the
[1:54:54] industrial park zoning
[1:54:55] designation would have to
[1:54:57] go through its own secure
[1:54:58] process at that time and for
[1:55:00] example or data center would
[1:55:01] have to go through its own full
[1:55:03] environmental review process
[1:55:04] at that time. Thank you, david.
[1:55:07] I'm in there for that response
[1:55:10] and then this second question
[1:55:13] is kind of also a request so
[1:55:16] you know, given what we heard
[1:55:17] about not being able to require
[1:55:21] the conservation easement
[1:55:24] of the future property owner,
[1:55:27] can staff guarantee that you
[1:55:30] will provide the information
[1:55:31] that they need to be informed
[1:55:34] about, you know, that that
[1:55:37] option that they have I don't
[1:55:39] know if that's common practice
[1:55:41] but for this project is that
[1:55:43] something that staff could
[1:55:44] ensure that the project
[1:55:46] applicant or the next property
[1:55:47] owner knows that a conservation
[1:55:50] easement is a request of the
[1:55:52] community and that they have
[1:55:54] that information? >> yes,
[1:55:57] councilmember absolutely. Thank
[1:55:58] you for confirming that. Those
[1:56:00] are my questions. >> thanks,
[1:56:03] councilmember. I appreciate it.
[1:56:04] let's turn now to
[1:56:05] councilmember claudius. Thank
[1:56:06] you, mayor, and thank you staff
[1:56:07] for clarifying the process for
[1:56:09] actually pursuing the
[1:56:10] conservation easement on a
[1:56:11] follow up since it was just
[1:56:12] referenced a couple of times
[1:56:13] about some of the commitments
[1:56:15] made by a previous council back
[1:56:17] in the 90s to pursue permanent
[1:56:18] protection of the open space.
[1:56:20] what is your take on that
[1:56:22] history is the history here
[1:56:24] essentially that council made a
[1:56:25] recommendation that was not
[1:56:26] legally enforceable or was it
[1:56:28] too ambiguous kind of what
[1:56:30] council was intending? So again
[1:56:32] >> councilmember, I apologize.
[1:56:33] I'm just trying to get to a
[1:56:34] better mike. That's the the
[1:56:38] previous direction came through
[1:56:39] a memo by then
[1:56:41] councilmember dando that
[1:56:43] directed staff to pursue a
[1:56:45] conservation easement. So
[1:56:46] obviously we don't have all
[1:56:48] of the records of the
[1:56:49] conversations that occurred
[1:56:50] after that but it does require
[1:56:52] both parties to be willing to
[1:56:53] pursue that. And so the
[1:56:56] eventuality is that we don't
[1:56:58] have that so we can only assume
[1:56:59] at this point that no agreement
[1:57:00] was reached. Thank >> you. And
[1:57:03] then just to follow up on
[1:57:04] councilmember casey's point, is
[1:57:05] this something that could be
[1:57:06] potentially added as a
[1:57:07] condition for any future actual
[1:57:09] project application on the
[1:57:10] industrial zone portion >>
[1:57:12] of the site? So again, it would
[1:57:13] >> be similar direction to
[1:57:15] pursue it that certainly
[1:57:17] something that we could >>
[1:57:18] engage with an applicant with
[1:57:20] prior to approval of that
[1:57:22] application and just sort
[1:57:23] of see what their willingness
[1:57:24] is to have the conversation and
[1:57:26] then do some follow up work
[1:57:27] around them. Thank you. You
[1:57:29] know, I think it's clear that
[1:57:30] obviously the community itself
[1:57:32] but also many of us up here
[1:57:33] would like to see some firmer
[1:57:35] protections for the open space
[1:57:36] component here. So whatever
[1:57:38] form that takes, I'm hopeful
[1:57:39] that if an actual project
[1:57:40] application comes back on this
[1:57:42] site that we can collectively
[1:57:43] move towards better protections
[1:57:44] for this open space. But in the
[1:57:46] meantime it is good to
[1:57:47] at least know that the general
[1:57:48] plan open space designation
[1:57:50] will include some additional
[1:57:51] safeguards that are not present
[1:57:52] under the existing pd zoning.
[1:57:54] thank you. Thanks council
[1:57:57] member I don't see any other
[1:57:59] hands so toni I think we're
[1:58:01] ready to vote on the motion by
[1:58:02] councilor casey >>
[1:58:14] . Motion passes 9 to 2 >> with
[1:58:20] mae and campos voting no. Okay
[1:58:24] . Thank you, toni. We are on to
[1:58:26] our next item. That was ladies
[1:58:28] consent rhonda item 3.1 which
[1:58:30] is the report of the city
[1:58:32] manager. >> thank you, mayor. I
[1:58:35] have no report today. Okay.
[1:58:37] thank you, jennifer rhonda,
[1:58:37] item 3.3 this is the housing
[1:58:40] department law loan portfolio
[1:58:43] audit report. Take a moment for
[1:58:47] city staff to move down to the
[1:58:51] box >>
[1:59:10] and joe, when you in the timber
[1:59:11] ready go ahead and get started.
[1:59:13] yes. So good afternoon >> joy
[1:59:19] city order. I'm here with
[1:59:21] alison, polly adrian perez and
[1:59:22] maria vi to present are on
[1:59:25] affordable multiple multifamily
[1:59:26] housing loan portfolio clear
[1:59:28] goals and stronger oversight
[1:59:29] would improve monitoring also
[1:59:30] in the boxes eric sullivan from
[1:59:32] the housing department >>
[1:59:36] affordable >> housing serves
[1:59:37] low to moderate income
[1:59:38] residents in the city of san
[1:59:40] jose to support the development
[1:59:41] of affordable multifamily
[1:59:43] housing. The city's housing
[1:59:44] department provides loans to
[1:59:46] developers for the construction
[1:59:47] of new properties and the
[1:59:48] preservation of existing
[1:59:49] properties. Along with the
[1:59:51] loans come restrictions on
[1:59:52] tenant rents and income to
[1:59:54] ensure that the units remain
[1:59:55] affordable over the life of the
[1:59:57] agreement and the affordability
[1:59:58] period. Housing staff are
[2:00:00] expected to verify that
[2:00:01] property owners repay loans for
[2:00:03] affordability restrictions and
[2:00:04] maintain buildings at the time
[2:00:06] of the audit, the permanent
[2:00:07] loan portfolio totaled over
[2:00:08] $745 million with nearly 25,000
[2:00:12] units with active loans
[2:00:14] affordability restrictions or
[2:00:16] were in the pipeline across
[2:00:18] roughly 220 properties. Many
[2:00:21] loans were recorded before 2012
[2:00:23] and are also subject to
[2:00:24] regulations from lenders and
[2:00:26] government agencies including
[2:00:27] the state and the federal
[2:00:28] government. The objective
[2:00:30] of this audit was to assess
[2:00:31] housing processes for managing
[2:00:33] the affordable housing loan
[2:00:34] portfolio including loan
[2:00:36] servicing and compliance
[2:00:37] monitoring as described in the
[2:00:40] city's adopted operating budget
[2:00:41] in addition to providing loans,
[2:00:42] housing manages and oversees
[2:00:44] the city's affordable housing
[2:00:45] loan portfolio portfolio
[2:00:47] including loan servicing and
[2:00:48] monitoring and compliance
[2:00:49] of deed restricted apartment
[2:00:51] apartments. Housing's role is
[2:00:53] to provide asset management
[2:00:54] which involves monitoring the
[2:00:55] financial performance
[2:00:57] of properties and the overall
[2:00:58] portfolio which differs from
[2:01:00] property management which
[2:01:01] relates to the day to day
[2:01:02] operations of a property
[2:01:04] housing >> context multiple
[2:01:06] types of oversight including
[2:01:08] financial reviews for staff,
[2:01:09] examine financial statements,
[2:01:11] operating budgets and other
[2:01:12] documentation required to be
[2:01:13] submitted by property owners
[2:01:15] affordability restriction
[2:01:17] monitoring where property meant
[2:01:18] or property managers are
[2:01:19] expected to submit rent rolls
[2:01:21] with rent levels and tenant
[2:01:22] income information to housing
[2:01:24] staff and staff then check
[2:01:26] whether the rents are within
[2:01:27] the allowed rent limits for the
[2:01:28] unit type and may check tenant
[2:01:29] incomes. Lastly, property
[2:01:31] inspections which enable the
[2:01:33] city to monitor the building's
[2:01:34] condition any problems that
[2:01:36] need to be addressed to
[2:01:36] maintain the long term
[2:01:37] viability of the property. We
[2:01:39] had two findings I'm we provide
[2:01:41] alison to talk through those.
[2:01:43] thank you. Our first finding
[2:01:46] was that housing should assess
[2:01:48] the asset management teams
[2:01:49] goals and resources as joe just
[2:01:52] described the asset management
[2:01:53] team's role is to monitor loan
[2:01:55] compliance for the city's
[2:01:56] affordable housing loan
[2:01:58] portfolio. This involves
[2:02:00] verifying that borrowers repay
[2:02:02] city loans, that housing units
[2:02:04] comply with affordability
[2:02:05] restrictions and that
[2:02:07] properties are appropriately
[2:02:08] maintained. We found the team
[2:02:11] has not completed all annual
[2:02:13] property reviews or inspections
[2:02:14] in recent years. According to
[2:02:16] housing, the team has
[2:02:17] historically not been able to
[2:02:19] complete all reviews annually.
[2:02:21] of the more than 200 properties
[2:02:23] in the portfolio vacancies and
[2:02:25] unclear expectation liens have
[2:02:27] hindered the team's ability to
[2:02:29] complete its work. In addition,
[2:02:32] the current software tools may
[2:02:33] not be sufficient to meet the
[2:02:35] goals of the program. Given the
[2:02:36] size and scope of the loan
[2:02:38] portfolio replacing or
[2:02:40] retooling software would help
[2:02:42] the team complete their work
[2:02:44] at the time of the audit.
[2:02:45] housing was developing an
[2:02:46] automated rent roll portal to
[2:02:48] assist with reviews and was
[2:02:50] working on developing standard
[2:02:51] operating procedures that would
[2:02:53] support staff to complete their
[2:02:55] work more consistently. We
[2:02:57] recommend that housing develop
[2:02:58] a program level strategic plan
[2:03:01] to identify the program goals
[2:03:02] and resource needs to
[2:03:04] reconfigure the current
[2:03:05] software or to acquire an asset
[2:03:07] management software platform
[2:03:09] and to update and standardize
[2:03:11] operating procedures and
[2:03:12] training. Our second finding >>
[2:03:16] is that housing should
[2:03:17] strengthen oversight
[2:03:19] of affordability restrictions
[2:03:20] and higher risk properties.
[2:03:22] some properties in the
[2:03:23] affordable housing portfolio do
[2:03:25] not comply with affordability
[2:03:27] restrictions. Have not
[2:03:28] submitted required
[2:03:29] documentation or have repeated
[2:03:31] property violations. We found
[2:03:34] in a limited sample of 878
[2:03:37] units across ten properties
[2:03:39] which represents 4% of the
[2:03:41] total units managed. 110 units
[2:03:44] had tenants with incomes above
[2:03:46] the cap for their unit type.
[2:03:48] that was 13% of the sample
[2:03:51] based on federal standards,
[2:03:52] incomes slightly over the
[2:03:54] limits generally aren't
[2:03:55] considered a problem because we
[2:03:57] don't want to penalize people
[2:03:58] for raising their incomes.
[2:04:00] however, 48 units had tenants
[2:04:03] that earned 140% or more of the
[2:04:06] income cap which was 5% of the
[2:04:08] sample. That income level meant
[2:04:10] that they exceeded the federal
[2:04:12] standard. Another concern is
[2:04:14] the potential for tenant
[2:04:16] incomes to be below
[2:04:17] expectations meaning they fall
[2:04:19] well below the target income
[2:04:21] level for their unit. This can
[2:04:23] leave the tenant overly rent
[2:04:24] burdened and put the property's
[2:04:26] financial stability at risk if
[2:04:27] the rental income is very low.
[2:04:30] we also noted that housing does
[2:04:32] not have a documented
[2:04:33] escalation process to address
[2:04:35] comply or property violations
[2:04:38] despite differences in property
[2:04:39] compliance. The asset
[2:04:40] management teams current
[2:04:42] approach does not differentiate
[2:04:44] financial and affordability
[2:04:45] restriction monitoring based on
[2:04:47] the risk of the property. We
[2:04:49] recommend that housing develop
[2:04:51] policies to address over and
[2:04:52] under income tenants and
[2:04:54] resolve significant or repeated
[2:04:56] property concerns and to
[2:04:58] establish a risk rating system
[2:05:00] to prioritize compliance
[2:05:01] monitoring. So to summarize
[2:05:05] finding one focused on a
[2:05:06] strategic plan to clarify what
[2:05:07] housing role is and the goals
[2:05:09] of the program and that plan
[2:05:10] will help housing create
[2:05:11] structures and processes to
[2:05:13] oversee the portfolio more
[2:05:14] effectively. Finding two is
[2:05:16] about making sure we have
[2:05:17] escalation processes when
[2:05:18] something goes wrong in a
[2:05:19] property whether that's about
[2:05:20] tenant incomes, financial
[2:05:21] concerns or the physical
[2:05:23] condition of the properties. I
[2:05:25] do want to emphasize that this
[2:05:26] is a complex regulatory
[2:05:27] environment with requirements
[2:05:28] and regulations that can come
[2:05:29] from multiple agencies which I
[2:05:30] think eric can speak to as
[2:05:31] well. This along with the scope
[2:05:34] of the portfolio makes
[2:05:36] addressing the issues we have
[2:05:36] identified challenging. However
[2:05:38] although the city can troops
[2:05:39] only a part of the funding it
[2:05:40] is incumbent upon the city to
[2:05:42] have processes that ensure
[2:05:44] these properties are
[2:05:45] well-maintained with adequate
[2:05:46] oversight. This is how we can
[2:05:47] assure the properties continue
[2:05:49] to provide quality affordable
[2:05:50] housing to san jose residents.
[2:05:51] here is to come as you accept
[2:05:53] report before signature or to
[2:05:55] eric for the administration's
[2:05:56] response. Thank >> you joseph
[2:05:58] eric sullivan director
[2:06:00] of housing. I appreciate the
[2:06:01] work of joe and his team in
[2:06:03] acknowledging some of the
[2:06:04] complex positions the housing
[2:06:06] department operates in and
[2:06:07] regarding this portfolio. We
[2:06:09] are not the regulator
[2:06:11] of primary instance. We
[2:06:13] primarily notice other entities
[2:06:16] the state, other funders to
[2:06:19] noncompliance issues and play a
[2:06:21] complex part in ensuring the
[2:06:23] continuing asset management
[2:06:25] of this portfolio. As we're
[2:06:27] seeing in our aggressive
[2:06:29] disposition of addressing very
[2:06:31] distressed assets. So that's
[2:06:33] regarding first community
[2:06:34] housing and we appreciate joe's
[2:06:36] sort of understanding of sort
[2:06:37] of the awkward position that we
[2:06:39] sit in and how we're able to
[2:06:41] move and improve our overall
[2:06:43] efforts at compliance while
[2:06:45] acknowledging some of these
[2:06:47] areas of enforcement are
[2:06:49] outside of our direct
[2:06:50] jurisdiction. The department is
[2:06:53] coming into this position just
[2:06:55] over two years ago has taken a
[2:06:57] lot of work prior to the audit
[2:06:59] including working on us as a
[2:07:00] plan as well as looking at ways
[2:07:02] in which we can better risk
[2:07:03] rate across the 180 or so
[2:07:07] buildings across the asset
[2:07:08] portfolio. And so we're
[2:07:10] continuing to bring that work
[2:07:11] forward this fall as we begin
[2:07:13] to implement these audits we
[2:07:15] accept the findings and I'm
[2:07:17] happy to answer your questions
[2:07:18] . Thank >> you for the
[2:07:21] presentation. Thank you, joe
[2:07:24] allison and eric. Toni, do we
[2:07:26] have any members of the public
[2:07:27] who wish to speak? Yes, america
[2:07:29] come on down followed by brian
[2:07:30] online
[2:07:42] . >> I want to call out the
[2:07:44] city of san jose for violating
[2:07:47] the brown act. You have an
[2:07:48] agenda housing items that need
[2:07:51] to be vetted by the public as
[2:07:53] consent agenda consent agenda
[2:07:56] usually is for routine >>
[2:07:59] spending as well as something
[2:08:01] that has been vetted by
[2:08:03] appointed or elected bodies
[2:08:06] such as in this item it should
[2:08:08] not be in review again probably
[2:08:10] because your committee in
[2:08:12] economics voted for something
[2:08:14] against >> the governments.
[2:08:17] well so now you're putting a
[2:08:18] here and also I want to call it
[2:08:20] out >> that you got to stay on
[2:08:22] this item is the housing
[2:08:23] department loan portfolio audit
[2:08:25] could you please stick to this
[2:08:26] item? It isn't clear to
[2:08:27] everyone I am. It should not
[2:08:29] have been split back in the
[2:08:30] open agenda. Also why is it
[2:08:33] that you guys are lending your
[2:08:34] property taxes >> as loans to
[2:08:37] developers that is against the
[2:08:40] will of your people? Did you
[2:08:42] guys check with your property
[2:08:44] payers tax? >> thank you that
[2:08:47] your time? Brian darby it's
[2:08:55] sorry about getting on there it
[2:08:56] was well written report thank
[2:08:57] you. Back to council all >>
[2:09:02] right coming back to the
[2:09:03] council thank you all start
[2:09:07] with councilmember >>. Thank
[2:09:11] you as always I'd like to thank
[2:09:13] the auditor and his team for
[2:09:15] good report and also for the
[2:09:16] briefings. I always find them
[2:09:18] very, very informative. I can
[2:09:20] ask all my questions and you
[2:09:22] know it's it's very good. So
[2:09:24] thank you for that. I also want
[2:09:26] to thank the housing department
[2:09:27] for answering my questions. I
[2:09:30] did note that some of the there
[2:09:33] were some vacancies during a
[2:09:35] previous time. I was just
[2:09:36] curious if those vacancies have
[2:09:38] been filled and allow you to
[2:09:40] get to some of your target
[2:09:42] completion dates as is
[2:09:44] mentioned in the report >>
[2:09:46] of the two vacancies one has
[2:09:47] already been filled, the other
[2:09:49] were pending an offer to be
[2:09:50] made. Wonderful. Well with >>
[2:09:53] that I'd like to move the the
[2:09:57] item and the report and just
[2:09:59] thank you for your information.
[2:10:02] second >> thank you, councilor
[2:10:05] accomplice >> thank you, mayor.
[2:10:09] I do just want to thank staff
[2:10:10] for this work and for the
[2:10:12] presentation with just one
[2:10:14] question can the city council
[2:10:17] receive an update for when the
[2:10:20] policy for addressing tenants
[2:10:22] that exceed or fall below
[2:10:24] income limits in affordable
[2:10:25] units is developed because as
[2:10:30] some folks may be concerned
[2:10:31] with displacement impacts and
[2:10:33] would like to understand how
[2:10:34] the housing department might
[2:10:35] prevent or mitigate
[2:10:36] displacement of these tenants.
[2:10:38] yes, we can come back and
[2:10:38] report but again I know that
[2:10:40] the housing department even if
[2:10:41] we find those instances
[2:10:43] of noncompliance of above or
[2:10:45] below income, we can't take any
[2:10:46] action. We just give notice to
[2:10:48] the owner or property manager
[2:10:50] and it's on them to then take
[2:10:51] action. So we can't require
[2:10:53] moves, we can't require
[2:10:56] disposition. We can require
[2:10:57] resolution. All we do is check
[2:10:59] and notice this is part of sort
[2:11:01] of the awkward setting that we
[2:11:03] have in the department. >>
[2:11:04] thank you. I think that
[2:11:05] information would be important
[2:11:07] for us to consider future
[2:11:09] policymaking. Thank you and
[2:11:13] great thanks councilmember.
[2:11:15] just want to also thank you for
[2:11:16] the audit. Joe, as always you
[2:11:17] and your team do excellent work
[2:11:19] and I think you have two very
[2:11:20] specific and actionable
[2:11:22] recommendations here that are
[2:11:23] material to the city. So
[2:11:26] there's a great audit and
[2:11:27] appreciate the housing
[2:11:28] department's follow up. Do we
[2:11:31] have any >> other hands not
[2:11:32] seen the other colleagues? So
[2:11:35] toni, let's vote. Motion >>
[2:11:47] passes unanimously with casey
[2:11:48] absent. >> thank you. Thank you
[2:11:52] all. Okay, rhonda, item 7.1
[2:11:54] this is the city's response to
[2:11:56] the santa clara county civil
[2:11:57] grand jury report entitled >>
[2:12:00] san jose animal care center the
[2:12:02] need to strengthen
[2:12:03] transparency, performance and
[2:12:05] trust. We'll start with the
[2:12:08] staff presentation >>
[2:12:34] . >> good afternoon. I'm matt.
[2:12:37] I'm the director of public
[2:12:38] works and with me is monica
[2:12:39] wiley, the deputy director for
[2:12:41] animal care and services. We
[2:12:44] will have a very brief
[2:12:45] presentation to highlight some
[2:12:46] of the findings and or
[2:12:47] recommendations included in the
[2:12:49] civil grand jury report that
[2:12:51] was submitted to us in may.
[2:12:55] first, we'd like to thank the
[2:12:56] civil grand jury for their
[2:12:57] review and investigation and
[2:12:59] report for recommendations for
[2:13:01] improvements at the animal care
[2:13:02] center and our services that we
[2:13:04] provide to the public. We also
[2:13:06] want to thank them for their
[2:13:07] acknowledgment of the progress
[2:13:08] that's been made and the
[2:13:09] commitment that we have to
[2:13:11] improving our services to our
[2:13:13] animals and to the people that
[2:13:14] care for our animals. You'll
[2:13:16] see that there's five findings
[2:13:17] and the way this is structured
[2:13:18] as you know because you did the
[2:13:19] civil grand jury report last
[2:13:21] week for one of them you have
[2:13:22] civil war in the next couple
[2:13:23] of weeks. The there's five
[2:13:27] findings which we have to
[2:13:28] respond if we agree, disagree
[2:13:29] or partially in total and then
[2:13:31] we have recommendations whether
[2:13:32] they're implemented partially
[2:13:33] or when they're going to be
[2:13:34] implemented. So first just a
[2:13:35] quick slide of all the
[2:13:36] findings. We agree with all
[2:13:38] of the findings that they have
[2:13:40] except for one we partially
[2:13:41] disagree and that's because we
[2:13:43] think it's factually different
[2:13:44] that we did not the number
[2:13:47] of animals two taken by rescues
[2:13:50] declined since 2001 they did
[2:13:52] with cats but not with dogs.
[2:13:53] dogs actually increased quite a
[2:13:55] bit since 2021. So digging
[2:14:00] deeper a little bit here on
[2:14:04] finding one they recommended
[2:14:06] the finding was that there was
[2:14:07] a ventilation system error in
[2:14:08] the facility. That's true. It
[2:14:10] was a facility piece that was
[2:14:12] under repair and there was an
[2:14:14] improvement being done at the
[2:14:15] time there were no animals in
[2:14:16] the room. We got our facilities
[2:14:18] folks out there and remediated
[2:14:20] that that next week finding two
[2:14:23] was the animals rescue partners
[2:14:24] declined to that's where we
[2:14:25] disagreed and pardon the
[2:14:27] recommendation is that he needs
[2:14:28] to develop a plan and timeline
[2:14:29] to repair to expand the
[2:14:31] relationship. We have expanded
[2:14:33] relationships. We have more
[2:14:34] relationships last year that
[2:14:35] doesn't mean the animals. So
[2:14:37] the relationship with different
[2:14:38] rescue partners was actually
[2:14:39] at its highest point last year
[2:14:41] than it was in the last five
[2:14:42] years. This is an evergreen
[2:14:45] process. We need to continue to
[2:14:46] work on relationships like
[2:14:47] every relationship some in the
[2:14:49] past we've had relationships
[2:14:52] go away where they weren't
[2:14:53] pleased with working with us
[2:14:54] for a period and then those in
[2:14:56] this last year have returned.
[2:14:58] we have new relationships that
[2:15:00] were added. In fact one of the
[2:15:01] dog rescues pulled more animals
[2:15:04] from us than any species across
[2:15:07] any group in the last five
[2:15:09] years in a single year just
[2:15:10] last year alone finding three
[2:15:14] the current provisions of spay
[2:15:15] neuter is insufficient. We
[2:15:17] agree we should expand public
[2:15:19] to spay neuter either at the
[2:15:21] shelter or to community service
[2:15:22] partners. That's true. We agree
[2:15:24] we have implemented that. We
[2:15:25] have had more surgeries. Each
[2:15:27] of the last three years than
[2:15:28] the preceding year and we need
[2:15:30] to continue to do more and
[2:15:32] staff is committed to
[2:15:33] increasing that and council
[2:15:34] provided us additional
[2:15:36] resources this budget cycle for
[2:15:38] additional spay neuter
[2:15:39] relationships funding funding
[2:15:42] for we have changed some data
[2:15:46] categories and historically not
[2:15:49] consistently noted them. We
[2:15:51] agree that we changed
[2:15:52] categories. We did note them in
[2:15:54] our annual report. One of the
[2:15:56] things that we in a way
[2:15:58] disagreed with what the civil
[2:15:59] grand jury said and pointing to
[2:16:01] what we have in terms of our
[2:16:02] public data and our public
[2:16:03] portals in terms of what the
[2:16:05] actual true information is. For
[2:16:07] example, the city must provide
[2:16:09] accurate, clear complete data
[2:16:10] to the public to assess a
[2:16:11] performance. One of the things
[2:16:14] we've chosen to do is lean
[2:16:16] forward and be very progressive
[2:16:17] about our data going out with
[2:16:19] an open data portal in real
[2:16:20] time. That means as the
[2:16:22] condition of the animals change
[2:16:23] over time we have to change the
[2:16:25] information we have into the
[2:16:26] public. The way I think of this
[2:16:28] in the way staff thinks about
[2:16:30] this is is if a person going
[2:16:32] into the hospital they go in
[2:16:33] one condition and things
[2:16:35] change. They sometimes improve,
[2:16:36] they sometimes decline,
[2:16:38] sometimes they have to go to
[2:16:39] another place before they end
[2:16:40] up going home to a foster
[2:16:42] system or a foster care or
[2:16:44] something like that. So it
[2:16:45] changes quite a bit as we see
[2:16:46] it now in our response back in
[2:16:49] the memo it was I want to think
[2:16:52] that it's clear that our annual
[2:16:54] report, our annual reporting
[2:16:55] numbers are the true audited
[2:16:57] numbers for the animals that we
[2:16:58] served over the period of that
[2:17:00] past year. Any in the
[2:17:03] intermittent time it changes
[2:17:04] quite a bit. So yes we change
[2:17:05] it. We don't indicate every
[2:17:06] single time we change. Whereas
[2:17:08] last fiscal year when we we
[2:17:11] presented our annual report we
[2:17:13] noted that we had to in
[2:17:15] alignment with the city audit
[2:17:17] to align our data practices. We
[2:17:19] had to adjust the data
[2:17:20] categories and the data
[2:17:21] reporting structures and we did
[2:17:23] that for the prior year as
[2:17:24] well. So we had two ways to
[2:17:26] compare apples to apples fiscal
[2:17:28] year over fiscal year. Item
[2:17:30] four be worse as I will not be
[2:17:31] implemented. This is something
[2:17:32] that was at contention during
[2:17:34] our audit and that we came to
[2:17:35] an agreement with the seattle
[2:17:37] city auditor about how we would
[2:17:39] present our ability to show how
[2:17:43] what our capacity is at any
[2:17:44] given time as it's listed in
[2:17:47] the report by the civil grand
[2:17:49] jury. It's extremely tricky to
[2:17:52] say what is our capacity? It's
[2:17:53] not the amount of cages that we
[2:17:55] have. It's not the amount
[2:17:56] of professionals that we have.
[2:17:58] it's it's also the the
[2:18:00] condition of the animals that
[2:18:01] we have. And so it's an
[2:18:02] algorithm how do you get the
[2:18:03] data system to present it? It's
[2:18:06] an incredibly labor intensive
[2:18:08] to make that happen in any
[2:18:09] meaningful way. What we agreed
[2:18:11] to is have a a status a shelter
[2:18:14] update dashboard that shows how
[2:18:15] many animals are in the
[2:18:16] building at any given time and
[2:18:18] that gets presented and there's
[2:18:19] a dashboard for that to say
[2:18:21] that we have because the
[2:18:22] condition at some point the
[2:18:24] number of kennels is 530 but
[2:18:27] that doesn't mean we can care
[2:18:28] for 530 animals responsibly
[2:18:30] at any given time if they're in
[2:18:32] a condition that is severely
[2:18:34] negative. We need a lot more
[2:18:35] staff time to do it or if we
[2:18:37] have a smaller staff staffing
[2:18:40] at any given time we might not
[2:18:41] be able to care for as many
[2:18:42] animals so that get capability
[2:18:44] of conditioning of caring for
[2:18:46] them is can be very tricky to
[2:18:48] get a data system to present
[2:18:49] our ability and then the other
[2:18:53] ones are implemented as we get
[2:18:56] going through each and then the
[2:18:58] last one is the four d the city
[2:19:00] should issue the number
[2:19:03] of animals that were turned
[2:19:04] away. We have been collecting
[2:19:07] information and the question is
[2:19:09] do we have it ready to present
[2:19:10] into a dashboard so the public
[2:19:11] can see how many we turn away
[2:19:13] at any given time. We don't
[2:19:15] have that system built yet. It
[2:19:18] came in this recommendation and
[2:19:19] as it's transitioning over to
[2:19:20] pyrenees well I wanted to give
[2:19:23] staff time some some time to
[2:19:25] figure out how to transition
[2:19:26] the information that they're
[2:19:27] gathering and what's the
[2:19:29] appropriate place or pace to
[2:19:30] report out how many animals
[2:19:32] they turn away that are healthy
[2:19:34] at any given time due to the
[2:19:35] capacity in the building >>
[2:19:39] five there's a trust gap
[2:19:41] between animal care and some
[2:19:44] and yes that's true. I would
[2:19:46] say that's true of almost any
[2:19:47] relationship at times there's
[2:19:48] trust gaps and we continue to
[2:19:50] work on it. We have worked on
[2:19:51] it. We will continue to work on
[2:19:53] it. Monika has brought in our
[2:19:55] community forums and there's
[2:19:56] been there's three cycles that
[2:19:58] have happened. We keep pushing
[2:19:59] on more. They've got more
[2:20:00] scheduled through the fall. It
[2:20:02] is a commitment of animal care
[2:20:04] staff to ensure that we
[2:20:06] continue to work on the
[2:20:07] relationship with the goal
[2:20:08] of having a relationship
[2:20:09] of trust. That takes time. We
[2:20:11] obviously have harmed that
[2:20:13] relationship over time and so
[2:20:14] we need to build that over time
[2:20:15] with confidence. One of the
[2:20:18] things they asked for is a
[2:20:20] public report on the audit
[2:20:21] findings. We believe that's
[2:20:23] implemented because one the
[2:20:24] city order published all of the
[2:20:26] things that we did on all
[2:20:27] of our audit items and we did
[2:20:29] the unprecedented thing. I
[2:20:30] don't think there's any audit
[2:20:31] that has a public web page with
[2:20:32] all of the documents presented
[2:20:34] in one place with all of the
[2:20:35] things that were produced as a
[2:20:36] result of that audit it still
[2:20:38] stands today that will stay up
[2:20:39] for a while. It should stay up
[2:20:40] in perpetuity until we change
[2:20:41] policies and do something
[2:20:43] different. The community
[2:20:45] advisory committee and talking
[2:20:47] with both john cicero here the
[2:20:50] parks rec and rex and
[2:20:52] neighborhood services and
[2:20:53] monica they do want this and so
[2:20:55] this is something they're going
[2:20:55] to build over the fall with a
[2:20:57] commitment of having built up a
[2:20:58] team to have their community
[2:21:00] advisory group. They will have
[2:21:01] that in place before the end
[2:21:03] of the calendar year and then
[2:21:05] public needs assessment. We've
[2:21:06] wanted to do this for many
[2:21:07] years. It just hasn't reached
[2:21:09] to the priority that we need to
[2:21:11] get that achieve. We could get
[2:21:13] that achieved right now we had
[2:21:14] too many other urgent things to
[2:21:15] work on and so we do think this
[2:21:18] is good because if we are
[2:21:19] shooting for more spay and
[2:21:20] neuter or for more services we
[2:21:22] need to really understand what
[2:21:23] that community need is to know
[2:21:25] what goal we're shooting at and
[2:21:27] to define and provide you the
[2:21:28] direction the opportunity to
[2:21:30] say we want san jose to be this
[2:21:32] part of that problem set and so
[2:21:34] that community assessment and
[2:21:36] that survey we have a there's a
[2:21:38] study period to see if we have
[2:21:39] all the right resources and
[2:21:40] tools to do it. If we don't
[2:21:42] have it will come to you in the
[2:21:44] fiscal year for the budget to
[2:21:45] make sure that we get allocated
[2:21:46] resources to pull that off
[2:21:48] again, we like to think so as
[2:21:51] noted in both my report and
[2:21:53] other places, the shelter
[2:21:56] animal care and services has
[2:21:57] transitioned to the parks
[2:21:58] recreation and neighborhood
[2:21:59] services department. We hope
[2:22:01] we've set a foundation from
[2:22:03] which they can continue to
[2:22:04] grow. We appreciate the grand
[2:22:06] jury's recommendations and this
[2:22:07] opportunity to reflect on the
[2:22:09] progress we've made. We welcome
[2:22:10] your questions. >> thanks,
[2:22:12] matt. Monica, appreciate the
[2:22:13] response. Thank you to the
[2:22:14] grand jury for your report >>
[2:22:16] toni, let's go to public
[2:22:17] comment first. Okay? Again, as
[2:22:23] a reminder, speakers must
[2:22:24] comply with the city's code of
[2:22:25] conduct for public meetings.
[2:22:26] please come comments to the
[2:22:28] body limit remarks to the
[2:22:29] agenda item and observe the
[2:22:31] time limit conduct that
[2:22:32] materially disrupts the meeting
[2:22:34] or interferes with others
[2:22:35] ability to participate may
[2:22:36] result in muting or removal as
[2:22:38] authorized by law. I'm going to
[2:22:39] start with the in-person
[2:22:40] speakers why don't you hear
[2:22:42] your name? Come on down first
[2:22:44] person on the microphone
[2:22:45] go ahead and speak the others
[2:22:46] line up behind that person I
[2:22:48] have samuel dana hayes, lynn
[2:22:53] paulson and and lynn bell. >>
[2:22:58] come on down. Hello. My >> name
[2:23:05] is lynn paulson. I spoke to you
[2:23:06] twice in the last year about
[2:23:07] issues when I tried to rescue
[2:23:09] two different dogs from being
[2:23:10] killed at the san jose animal
[2:23:11] care center. I if you plan to
[2:23:13] move >> forward from the grand
[2:23:15] jury report, it's important
[2:23:16] that you increase your
[2:23:17] engagement as the animal care
[2:23:19] center moves to this different
[2:23:20] administrative department. I've
[2:23:22] sent you a letter indicating
[2:23:23] thanks for some actions
[2:23:25] director wiley and the center
[2:23:27] have taken but also listing
[2:23:29] some open issues. Too many cats
[2:23:31] and dogs are being killed in
[2:23:33] the last fiscal year 154 dogs,
[2:23:36] 715 cats and 496 kittens were
[2:23:39] killed. There may be a newly
[2:23:41] documented euthanasia process
[2:23:43] but the detailed criteria have
[2:23:45] not yet been made transparent.
[2:23:47] there's not enough being done
[2:23:48] to stop the incoming volume
[2:23:50] of animals such as the actions
[2:23:51] they referred to. We need to
[2:23:53] increase the spay and neuter
[2:23:54] services. >> there are too many
[2:23:56] cases of retribution towards
[2:23:58] staff or volunteers who've been
[2:24:00] summarily dismissed. Please
[2:24:01] listen to the community. We
[2:24:03] count on your leadership >> to
[2:24:04] address the issues. Thank you
[2:24:06] that your time next speaker
[2:24:09] also come on down save the
[2:24:10] cats. >> good afternoon.
[2:24:16] my name is dana hayes. I am a
[2:24:18] foster tnr volunteer and an
[2:24:20] advocate first van neuter. Last
[2:24:22] week in district six I worked
[2:24:25] on a hoarding situation with 77
[2:24:27] cats and kittens. This is the
[2:24:32] result of unchecked
[2:24:33] reproduction and I appreciate
[2:24:36] the grand jury's work and
[2:24:37] recognizing the challenges
[2:24:38] faced with animal services. But
[2:24:40] the root of many shelter
[2:24:41] problems is the animal
[2:24:43] overpopulation and we need to
[2:24:45] focus on prevention and turn
[2:24:47] off the faucet rather than
[2:24:48] continually mopping up the
[2:24:50] mess. I recognize there is a
[2:24:52] national veterinarian shortage
[2:24:54] however, with two in-house
[2:24:55] surgery suites not being foley
[2:24:57] utilized and ongoing vacancies,
[2:24:59] there may be other factors
[2:25:00] worth examining. I would urge
[2:25:02] the city auditor to review the
[2:25:04] applicant pool recruitment
[2:25:05] efforts and hiring outcomes to
[2:25:07] identify barriers barriers the
[2:25:09] city can address. I also ask
[2:25:12] that the city reconsider their
[2:25:14] policy >> of grant not hiring
[2:25:17] and >> next speaker amy jahn
[2:25:20] come on down >> and america.
[2:25:25] hello, my name is andy shayne.
[2:25:27] I live in hamilton place in
[2:25:28] willow glen. I've been coming
[2:25:29] to these city council meetings
[2:25:31] for the last few years to
[2:25:32] express my concerns regarding
[2:25:33] the san jose animal shelter.
[2:25:35] when are you guys going to
[2:25:36] finally listen to us? I feel
[2:25:39] this there are many problems
[2:25:42] that affect the animals in
[2:25:43] their care. I feel this is
[2:25:44] foremost due to the management
[2:25:45] they're firing two long term
[2:25:47] volunteers because they took
[2:25:48] pictures or videos of the dogs
[2:25:50] to help network them is
[2:25:51] unacceptable. How do you fire a
[2:25:53] volunteer? They're volunteering
[2:25:55] their time to help dogs get
[2:25:56] their forever home. The shelter
[2:25:58] should be appreciative of this.
[2:25:59] I've been a volunteer a dog
[2:26:01] volunteer at the humane society
[2:26:02] of silicon valley. They
[2:26:04] encourage us to take videos and
[2:26:05] pictures because it truly does
[2:26:07] help the animals get a home.
[2:26:10] why did yukon have to use their
[2:26:11] light for being inside a dog?
[2:26:14] he made one mistake and one
[2:26:16] knee reaction by this
[2:26:17] administration caused the dog
[2:26:19] to lose their life. You have a
[2:26:21] lot of money to give to this
[2:26:22] shelter over and over the years
[2:26:24] and nothing is changing. When
[2:26:25] are you going to finally >>
[2:26:26] listen that your time next
[2:26:28] speaker. Amelia >> mccluskey
[2:26:31] come on down. Good afternoon.
[2:26:34] my name is samuel. I'm a
[2:26:35] volunteer at the oasis. I've
[2:26:37] been there for more than a year
[2:26:39] and a half with about 700 hours
[2:26:42] of dog walking and 100 hours
[2:26:44] of driving dogs to be neutered
[2:26:46] and spayed. I know the shuttle
[2:26:48] quite well. I walk daily with
[2:26:51] management. I raise issues with
[2:26:54] them. They're considerate. They
[2:26:55] fix it. Maybe not the same day
[2:26:58] but they fix it. People had
[2:27:03] signed a contract with the
[2:27:06] shelter and right after they
[2:27:08] signed the contract they start
[2:27:09] they started breaking the rules
[2:27:12] and now they find themselves
[2:27:13] out and they're going to have a
[2:27:15] rally. 5:00 out there talking
[2:27:18] about dog on volunteers. So I'm
[2:27:22] here to give a testament. The
[2:27:24] shelter management does not on
[2:27:25] volunteers. They walk with
[2:27:27] volunteers who want to walk
[2:27:28] with them. If they want to
[2:27:30] demonstrate outside. They
[2:27:32] should be out. Thank you. Thank
[2:27:35] you. Next speaker >> I urge you
[2:27:43] not >> to accept the response
[2:27:44] to civil grand jury report.
[2:27:46] after years of advocates
[2:27:47] raising concerns to audit media
[2:27:49] stories and now this report, it
[2:27:51] is clear that you're still not
[2:27:53] listening to us and I'm sure
[2:27:54] some of you're on your phone
[2:27:55] right now not even listening to
[2:27:57] us again. Finding five
[2:27:59] identifies a trust gap between
[2:28:00] the shelter and the community
[2:28:02] and calls for transparency,
[2:28:03] responsiveness and meaningful
[2:28:05] engagement even with critics.
[2:28:07] but look at recommendation for
[2:28:09] the it calls for the city to
[2:28:11] publicly report how many
[2:28:12] animals are turned away. The
[2:28:14] city claims its transparency
[2:28:15] recommendations are
[2:28:16] implemented. And yet says this
[2:28:19] basic information won't be
[2:28:20] posted until april 2020 >>
[2:28:22] seven. How is that
[2:28:24] transparency? The grand jury
[2:28:26] also identified insufficient
[2:28:27] spay neuter capacity and
[2:28:29] declining rescue transfers
[2:28:31] while its budget has grown to
[2:28:33] 17.5 million. Why are animals
[2:28:36] still being set aside for spay
[2:28:38] neuter? Why are there no vets
[2:28:40] on the weekends? Why is medical
[2:28:41] and operation >> still full?
[2:28:44] the next speaker. I am a long
[2:28:50] time tax volunteer. I have
[2:28:51] volunteered there for five
[2:28:52] years and I was one of the
[2:28:54] volunteers who was terminated
[2:28:56] recently. I'm here to speak
[2:28:57] about finding number five the
[2:28:58] civil grand jury report the
[2:29:00] significant trust gap between
[2:29:02] animal care services and the
[2:29:03] community. I have experienced
[2:29:05] that erosion of trust
[2:29:06] firsthand. There is a lack
[2:29:08] of collaboration, transparency
[2:29:09] and accountability. Instead
[2:29:11] of working with volunteers
[2:29:12] toward the shared goal
[2:29:13] of helping animals, the shelter
[2:29:15] is increasingly creating
[2:29:16] barriers. Most concerning lea
[2:29:18] saying >> that saying simply
[2:29:20] that an audit or grand jury
[2:29:22] recommendation has been
[2:29:23] implemented does not mean that
[2:29:25] it's actually being followed.
[2:29:26] we have seen dogs even now even
[2:29:28] today being euthanized who do
[2:29:30] not appear to meet the the
[2:29:32] shelter's own euthanasia
[2:29:34] criteria and volunteers who
[2:29:36] raise these concerns are being
[2:29:38] dismissed. Removing volunteers
[2:29:39] will not remove the underlying
[2:29:41] problems that we bring to
[2:29:42] light. If the city truly wants
[2:29:44] to rebuild trust as tracks need
[2:29:46] to work with the volunteers not
[2:29:48] around them, we need to thank
[2:29:50] you that your time and genuine
[2:29:52] >> collaboration. Next speaker
[2:29:57] I want to know how things
[2:29:58] got so far that a grand jury is
[2:30:00] involved in this. I mean come
[2:30:02] on people. This is governance
[2:30:04] for cities. 101 if you're going
[2:30:06] to take a class on it, you need
[2:30:08] to be able to control the cat
[2:30:09] and dog population without
[2:30:11] having these kind of problems.
[2:30:12] >> I mean these volunteers do
[2:30:15] great work and having too >>
[2:30:17] many cats outside brings down
[2:30:19] the coyotes. Anyone seen a
[2:30:21] coyote rogue roaming around
[2:30:22] your neighborhood in the middle
[2:30:24] of the suburbs? That's why >>
[2:30:26] they got these feral cat
[2:30:27] colonies in there. They come
[2:30:28] down and they eat them sort
[2:30:30] of mountain lions too. I've
[2:30:31] seen them. Believe it or not,
[2:30:33] not too far from where I live.
[2:30:35] so the city needs to get their
[2:30:37] act together, not be so
[2:30:38] nonchalant and try to control
[2:30:40] the cat and dog population. How
[2:30:42] hard could it be? It's not. I
[2:30:44] mean can you imagine this this
[2:30:46] city is running this is like
[2:30:47] mississippi or something. Come
[2:30:49] on people. Get it straight.
[2:30:52] thank you. Your next speaker.
[2:30:57] >> so I have never seen any
[2:31:00] city would have a county civil
[2:31:03] grand jury report. Does that
[2:31:05] mean that you guys were sued?
[2:31:07] do you have dogs that are
[2:31:08] biting people? It is scary. I
[2:31:10] don't think I'm going to come
[2:31:11] and help you guys next time
[2:31:13] even if you guys invite me.
[2:31:15] fellow americans, you guys
[2:31:17] really need to maybe ask your
[2:31:20] city government to stop
[2:31:22] squandering your tax dollars as
[2:31:24] loans to help builders and help
[2:31:27] wealthy real >> estate
[2:31:28] developers. And why is our our
[2:31:31] entire state and especially a
[2:31:34] rich city that is so close to
[2:31:36] silicon valley run on
[2:31:37] volunteers? Only one only one
[2:31:41] answer. You must be communists.
[2:31:43] that's what communist
[2:31:44] government do. You guys >> take
[2:31:47] property you guys take away
[2:31:48] from people and enrich your own
[2:31:50] pockets. And that's why real
[2:31:52] estate sharks has a taste
[2:31:55] because those communist
[2:31:57] government that are corrupt
[2:31:59] they buy cash. Thank you. Next
[2:32:00] speaker. >> yeah, after this
[2:32:05] speaker I'll go to rebecca
[2:32:06] online. Hello. I'm a san jose
[2:32:11] native from district three. I
[2:32:14] would like to thank the
[2:32:14] volunteers and staff whose work
[2:32:16] I imagine can be gratifying,
[2:32:18] heartbreaking and sadly never
[2:32:20] ending. I'm concerned about
[2:32:22] recent news news reports
[2:32:23] regarding the firing of long
[2:32:25] term volunteers for violating
[2:32:26] the questionable rule against
[2:32:28] photography. There is no hipa
[2:32:30] in animal care. As a citizen
[2:32:32] this arbitrary rule makes it
[2:32:34] seem that whoever's in charge
[2:32:35] has something to hide. Our
[2:32:37] animals and volunteers deserve
[2:32:39] better. I ask that the council
[2:32:41] direct that this rule be
[2:32:42] rescinded. Please bring back
[2:32:44] these dedicated volunteers.
[2:32:46] thank you. Thank you, rebecca
[2:32:49] followed by the man rebecca
[2:32:59] davis matthews. All right.
[2:33:01] sorry. We need to start by
[2:33:02] going with sustainable
[2:33:03] shelters. I'm part of a larger
[2:33:05] group of advocates who have
[2:33:06] been coming to these meetings
[2:33:07] for almost four years and
[2:33:08] repeated pleas for change have
[2:33:09] fallen on deaf ears. When it
[2:33:11] comes down to it, trust and
[2:33:12] complacency are figured in the
[2:33:14] grand jury report. Shelter
[2:33:16] management needs to take a hard
[2:33:17] look at rebuilding trust with
[2:33:18] the community. Take a look
[2:33:20] at any found animal related
[2:33:21] posts on social media and you
[2:33:22] will see comments from members
[2:33:23] of the public stating that
[2:33:24] animals should not be taken to
[2:33:26] the shelter because of the many
[2:33:27] adopted cruel dogs silently
[2:33:29] euthanized or put on a final
[2:33:31] because of the many cats
[2:33:32] euthanized behind the scenes or
[2:33:33] listed as final for treatable
[2:33:35] conditions like ringworm.
[2:33:37] complacency current shelter
[2:33:38] management is complacent and
[2:33:40] disbelief that changes have
[2:33:41] been made. There are still many
[2:33:43] gaps in services most notably
[2:33:44] the public spay neuter program
[2:33:46] which currently has 1 to 2 days
[2:33:48] of tnr per week when it should
[2:33:49] be 4 to 5 days of both tnr and
[2:33:51] services for own pets in house.
[2:33:54] with the continued explosion
[2:33:55] of puppies and kittens in our
[2:33:56] area, the time is now to return
[2:33:58] the shelter to its former role
[2:34:00] in supplying a robust >> demand
[2:34:04] followed by brian mann. If
[2:34:14] you're on the phone it star six
[2:34:15] to unmute >> someone. Good
[2:34:20] afternoon. My name is mike
[2:34:21] wagner. I have a fascinating
[2:34:23] observation to share with all
[2:34:24] of you. Over the past four
[2:34:26] years we've had the management
[2:34:27] audit that largely went ignored
[2:34:29] back in 2022 as well as a
[2:34:31] scathing 133 page city audit by
[2:34:33] joe rice and his team. A da's
[2:34:35] office criminal investigation
[2:34:37] in 2024 led by investigate
[2:34:39] owner chrissy durant and now a
[2:34:41] civil grand jury investigation
[2:34:42] in 25 and 26. The city has also
[2:34:45] been sued in santa clara
[2:34:47] superior court in 2026 by an
[2:34:48] animal welfare advocate and a
[2:34:50] former partner of the shelter.
[2:34:51] give it all this. It's shocking
[2:34:54] that the city has not
[2:34:55] terminated a single director
[2:34:56] nor has any director received
[2:34:58] any disciplinary action even
[2:35:00] though over a dozen ethics
[2:35:01] violations complaints have been
[2:35:03] filed with the city manager's
[2:35:04] office. When are people going
[2:35:06] to be held accountable? When
[2:35:08] are people going to be handled,
[2:35:11] held accountable for all
[2:35:12] of these animals suffering and
[2:35:14] dying over the last four years
[2:35:15] >> by brian followed by tina.
[2:35:24] >> I would bring up one thing I
[2:35:29] read through and sent an email
[2:35:31] about it. I've heard the word a
[2:35:33] few times and I've heard it in
[2:35:34] other situations too is
[2:35:36] retaliation that's illegal to
[2:35:39] retaliate against the
[2:35:40] volunteer, to retaliate against
[2:35:42] the citizens to retaliate
[2:35:44] against an employee. Those are
[2:35:46] actionable. The city has not
[2:35:47] done well in lawsuits that have
[2:35:48] done that have been similar to
[2:35:50] that and it that should be a
[2:35:53] critical issue. Firing for
[2:35:56] cause having been a volunteer
[2:35:58] not for the shelter but for
[2:35:59] another organization for making
[2:36:01] bringing up concerns
[2:36:03] retaliation hurts people. You
[2:36:05] know you put your heart and
[2:36:06] soul into something and then it
[2:36:07] just and then you're no longer
[2:36:09] part of anything and it it
[2:36:11] should be dealt with seriously
[2:36:14] and it doesn't seem like it is.
[2:36:16] thank you tina online followed
[2:36:19] by kim in person. Hi, good
[2:36:24] afternoon. This is tina
[2:36:25] murrell. I live in district
[2:36:27] three. I want to say thank you
[2:36:30] guys for your time. I sent you
[2:36:32] some thoughts yesterday via
[2:36:34] email but I wanted to focus on
[2:36:36] one thing in particular which
[2:36:39] is outside of the scope of my
[2:36:41] letter to you. I'd like to urge
[2:36:43] you to please use your
[2:36:44] influence >> as a mayor and
[2:36:47] city council at a higher level
[2:36:49] to help put through some
[2:36:50] policies that will reduce the
[2:36:52] cat population or
[2:36:54] overpopulation. Assembly member
[2:36:56] ash kalra is actively working
[2:36:59] on some bills. He had a great
[2:37:01] bill. It was to allow vet techs
[2:37:04] to be able to spay cats and
[2:37:10] unfortunately it didn't pass
[2:37:11] but he's putting through some
[2:37:12] other ones. Maybe that's a good
[2:37:14] place to start. The other thing
[2:37:16] that I'd like to invite you to
[2:37:18] do is please check out these
[2:37:20] places where you have your
[2:37:22] voting on go and I. Kim was it
[2:37:29] kim yeah. Hi, I'm kim. I just
[2:37:35] got here so didn't get to hear
[2:37:37] everything. I came here because
[2:37:39] I've been watching online all
[2:37:41] about the shelter. I have
[2:37:43] rescued over 100 dogs so I know
[2:37:46] how hard it is to be a
[2:37:47] volunteer. It's so hard. I
[2:37:48] can't imagine these volunteers
[2:37:50] in the shelter watching dogs
[2:37:51] get put down. I really >>
[2:37:54] believe that the volunteers
[2:37:56] need to be looked at. They have
[2:37:57] some great, great >>
[2:37:58] suggestions. I have tried to
[2:38:00] contact you, mayor. I would
[2:38:03] suggest some air to answer your
[2:38:05] phone because you can't get
[2:38:06] through to you. There's less
[2:38:08] air. You want to talk to
[2:38:09] me later? My company does that
[2:38:11] and some of the council people
[2:38:12] too. I've tried to like the
[2:38:14] phone just rings and if we can
[2:38:17] get a consensus of what the
[2:38:19] population is looking at I was
[2:38:21] shocked >> at how much verbiage
[2:38:24] is being talked about council
[2:38:25] people, mayors. I can't imagine
[2:38:28] how hard it is in this
[2:38:29] community with this shelter
[2:38:31] with covid and all the dog
[2:38:33] population. What you're dealing
[2:38:34] with. Thank >> you. That's your
[2:38:35] time. I have sue online here.
[2:38:44] if you leave it you can leave
[2:38:44] it with the clerk. Hi. I just
[2:38:48] wanted to say that one of the
[2:38:50] things I don't understand and
[2:38:52] which I think reflects on
[2:38:53] management somehow and this
[2:38:55] issue of trust I keep hearing
[2:38:57] about is this new volunteer
[2:38:59] agreement that restricts
[2:39:00] volunteers from taking photos
[2:39:02] and videos of animals because
[2:39:05] it really does help the animals
[2:39:06] get adopted which is the whole
[2:39:08] point of the shelter. So I
[2:39:11] don't understand why they won't
[2:39:13] give them permission to do that
[2:39:15] and also the fact that
[2:39:16] volunteers have been retaliated
[2:39:18] against some of them who have
[2:39:21] volunteered at the shelter for
[2:39:22] a long time. They're doing this
[2:39:24] for free for no money and hey,
[2:39:27] you know, it's illegal in the
[2:39:28] workplace. Maybe not for
[2:39:30] volunteers but that just
[2:39:33] doesn't seem right. Thank you.
[2:39:35] >> back to council. Okay. Thank
[2:39:40] you, toni. Thank you to all
[2:39:41] of our public speakers. Before
[2:39:42] I turn to colleagues, I'll just
[2:39:44] say a couple of quick things.
[2:39:45] one, I want to start by really
[2:39:47] thanking the volunteers and
[2:39:50] animal advocates, not just
[2:39:52] those who spoke today but I
[2:39:53] know we are very lucky in
[2:39:55] san jose to have hundreds
[2:39:57] of people who care a lot about
[2:39:59] the care of animals in our
[2:40:00] community and help in a variety
[2:40:02] of ways from walking dogs to
[2:40:04] trapping stray cats and getting
[2:40:06] them spayed or neutered to a
[2:40:08] whole variety of capacity that
[2:40:10] they add just for a little bit
[2:40:12] of context for those following
[2:40:13] along. You go back a few years
[2:40:16] ago coming out of the pandemic
[2:40:18] we were hit with this wave
[2:40:22] of animal releases into the
[2:40:24] community during the pandemic.
[2:40:25] sadly many people rushed out to
[2:40:28] get a pet as they were at home
[2:40:30] and then when they returned to
[2:40:31] work decided it was too much
[2:40:33] trouble and we had a huge
[2:40:34] influx of pets. It also was the
[2:40:38] case at least in my opinion
[2:40:40] that we had been
[2:40:41] under-investing in the shelter
[2:40:42] and staffing and facilities and
[2:40:45] really needed to invest to
[2:40:47] modernize and I'm proud of this
[2:40:49] council over the last three
[2:40:50] years has significantly
[2:40:51] increased the investment nearly
[2:40:53] doubling investment in the
[2:40:55] animal care center just over
[2:40:56] the last three years and adding
[2:40:58] to staffing. It's also worth
[2:41:00] noting we have a new director
[2:41:02] so there's been a leadership
[2:41:03] change and we are in the
[2:41:05] process. We've just moved it
[2:41:07] from within public works to
[2:41:10] under parks recreation and
[2:41:11] neighborhood services. >> a
[2:41:14] couple of years ago I and some
[2:41:17] colleagues and I put forward a
[2:41:18] memo calling for an audit. We
[2:41:20] have a very extensive audit
[2:41:22] with over 30 recommendations
[2:41:24] most of which have been
[2:41:25] implemented. So there is a lot
[2:41:27] of work to do and to the point
[2:41:29] I think you may love trust to
[2:41:30] rebuild that isn't it's going
[2:41:32] to have to be hard earned. It's
[2:41:33] not going to come overnight or
[2:41:35] just be because we say we've
[2:41:37] implemented policies people are
[2:41:38] going to see it and experience
[2:41:40] it for themselves and make
[2:41:41] their own determination. I do.
[2:41:44] I do want to point on what I do
[2:41:46] want to push on one item if we
[2:41:47] could put the slides back up
[2:41:48] and specifically go to finding
[2:41:51] three and recommendation three
[2:41:55] and I forget the slide number
[2:41:56] now but it had to do with our
[2:42:00] spay and neuter capacity. This
[2:42:02] is something I've been very
[2:42:05] focused on in recent years and
[2:42:07] in the in my march budget
[2:42:10] message which council adopted
[2:42:13] we've directed the
[2:42:15] administration to go to five
[2:42:18] days a week and just again I
[2:42:19] think it was said by some folks
[2:42:21] during public comment but this
[2:42:23] is our best opportunity to get
[2:42:24] upstream. I was just actually
[2:42:27] with councilmember cohen up
[2:42:30] at west winds mobile home park
[2:42:32] and happened >> to meet a group
[2:42:34] who again voluntarily are
[2:42:36] trapping stray cats and getting
[2:42:38] them treated and then
[2:42:39] rereleasing them and trying to
[2:42:42] get upstream of this
[2:42:43] proliferation of stray >> cats
[2:42:46] and just in that one colony up
[2:42:48] there, 250 or more cats and
[2:42:50] some folks are lining up
[2:42:52] at five in the morning hoping
[2:42:53] to get a slot. So the thing
[2:42:55] that concerns me and I just I
[2:42:56] want to get a little more
[2:42:57] detail and push on this a
[2:42:58] little bit is >> we put here
[2:43:02] recommendation three that the
[2:43:04] status is implemented which has
[2:43:05] a an air of finality about it
[2:43:08] makes it sound like we're done.
[2:43:10] then I think you said we're not
[2:43:11] >> done or what are our options
[2:43:12] in terms of the responses we
[2:43:15] can give on status because I
[2:43:17] think I think >> we probably
[2:43:18] agree but I just want to get on
[2:43:19] the record here that we have a
[2:43:20] lot of work to do to expand
[2:43:22] that capacity as one of our
[2:43:24] primary prevention strategies
[2:43:26] to relieve all that downstream
[2:43:28] pressure that the staff and
[2:43:29] volunteers are under. So matt
[2:43:31] or monica can you share a
[2:43:32] little more about where we are
[2:43:34] with this? What's next and is
[2:43:36] there any other word we could
[2:43:37] use beyond just implemented
[2:43:39] which makes it sound done >>
[2:43:41] certainly and I did provide it
[2:43:43] in the memo and that's. So this
[2:43:44] was for the slide purposes that
[2:43:46] is just listed as implemented
[2:43:47] and there are contacts provided
[2:43:49] in the notes in the memo and
[2:43:50] which will go back to the civil
[2:43:51] grand jury and monica and clean
[2:43:53] up any additional things that I
[2:43:54] miss. So by implemented it says
[2:43:57] in so the recommendation is to
[2:43:59] increase and expand spay neuter
[2:44:01] surgeries if that's if that's
[2:44:04] the marker then it is implement
[2:44:06] we did increase and expand it
[2:44:08] needs to increase and expand
[2:44:10] more. You provided us new
[2:44:11] resources in july that could
[2:44:14] that will be used to expand
[2:44:15] resources this fiscal year and
[2:44:17] so and we've increased each
[2:44:19] of the last three years double
[2:44:20] digits the prior two years and
[2:44:22] high single digits last year it
[2:44:25] will be reported at the annual
[2:44:26] report what the actual numbers
[2:44:28] are in october so in just a
[2:44:29] couple of months time like six
[2:44:30] weeks time, monica will be
[2:44:33] presenting the annual report
[2:44:34] for the actual figures from
[2:44:36] last year. It was just shy
[2:44:38] of the target that I had sent
[2:44:39] them but they also had a staff
[2:44:41] member was gone for about five
[2:44:42] months of the year due to be on
[2:44:44] leave and there's so we have
[2:44:47] increased even at a decreased
[2:44:50] staff capacity and for the
[2:44:52] first 6 or 7 months of this
[2:44:54] year that last fiscal year
[2:44:56] staff was spending a tremendous
[2:44:57] amount of time implementing the
[2:44:59] 39 automated audit items. They
[2:45:02] were spending a lot of time to
[2:45:03] build both the policies and
[2:45:04] procedures and training and all
[2:45:05] of the things that are part
[2:45:06] of that. Again you see
[2:45:09] detracting a little bit from
[2:45:10] our capacity to perform but it
[2:45:11] was we weren't able to provide
[2:45:12] necessarily as many surgeries
[2:45:14] as we had hoped for because we
[2:45:15] were building all those things
[2:45:16] so that we can have a place to
[2:45:17] grow from and so there is an
[2:45:19] increase but it is not the
[2:45:21] target that we're setting. It
[2:45:21] will be increased higher this
[2:45:23] year and the goal is to get to
[2:45:24] a certain amount and I'll let
[2:45:25] the team in october set what
[2:45:27] their stuff is for this year.
[2:45:29] okay. And when we come back and
[2:45:32] continue with this discussion
[2:45:34] in october, would that be the
[2:45:35] best time for us to understand
[2:45:38] for you to be able to quantify
[2:45:40] how much that increase in the
[2:45:43] spay and neuter >> services
[2:45:45] will be this fiscal year? I
[2:45:46] think I will be interested to
[2:45:47] know from the beginning of the
[2:45:48] fiscal year to the end how much
[2:45:50] increased capacity we will get.
[2:45:52] yes. So I think that's what
[2:45:53] we're hoping is that they'll be
[2:45:54] able to produce. So this will
[2:45:56] be monica's first full fiscal
[2:45:57] year with us as well. She had
[2:45:59] gotten in the audit and get
[2:46:00] everything staff oriented and
[2:46:01] then oriented back to with here
[2:46:04] on us and so they have a vision
[2:46:06] of what they want to be working
[2:46:07] on. They'll be presenting that
[2:46:08] to the committee in october and
[2:46:10] that this is what we achieved
[2:46:11] and this is their vision for
[2:46:12] the fiscal year. >> yeah okay.
[2:46:14] and I focus on that one again
[2:46:16] not because it's the only thing
[2:46:17] we need to do. We know there's
[2:46:18] from the audit many different
[2:46:19] areas we're trying to improve
[2:46:20] but it does feel like one
[2:46:22] of the most strategic ways for
[2:46:24] us to get upstream of the
[2:46:25] challenge create some breathing
[2:46:26] room for staff and be able to
[2:46:27] implement all these other audit
[2:46:29] recommendations and kind
[2:46:30] of improve overall operations.
[2:46:32] I see colleagues want to chime
[2:46:33] in. I'm going to turn to them
[2:46:35] now and I'll start with
[2:46:37] councilmember ortiz. Thank you
[2:46:41] mayor. I just want to start out
[2:46:42] by thanking our animal care and
[2:46:45] services staff. This is
[2:46:46] incredibly difficult work and I
[2:46:48] recognize that many of the
[2:46:49] challenges that we are
[2:46:50] discussing today didn't develop
[2:46:52] overnight staff have been
[2:46:53] working through capacity
[2:46:55] pressures, staffing challenges,
[2:46:57] veterinary shortages and
[2:46:59] increasing demand for services
[2:47:01] whilst still caring for
[2:47:02] thousands of animals every
[2:47:04] year. At the same time I want
[2:47:06] to acknowledge our many animal
[2:47:08] advocates rescue partners,
[2:47:10] volunteers >> and residents who
[2:47:12] have continued to >> push this
[2:47:13] city to >> do better something
[2:47:15] I believe we can do >> the
[2:47:17] grand jury makes it clear that
[2:47:19] there has been progress but it
[2:47:21] also makes it clear that there
[2:47:22] are there is still a lot
[2:47:24] of work that needs to be done
[2:47:25] particularly around transparent
[2:47:27] sea rescue partnership spay and
[2:47:30] neuter services and building
[2:47:32] trust with the community. With
[2:47:34] that I have a few questions.
[2:47:37] staff is committed to >>
[2:47:38] identifying the first cohort of
[2:47:40] the community advisory group by
[2:47:42] the end of the year. How will
[2:47:45] members of the advisory group
[2:47:46] be selected and how are we
[2:47:48] making sure that some of the
[2:47:49] advocates who have been most
[2:47:50] critical of this shelter >>
[2:47:52] have a seat at the table >> so
[2:47:55] I'm going to kick this over to
[2:47:56] monica in just a minute because
[2:47:57] I won't be implementing this
[2:47:58] piece because it'll be after
[2:48:00] my term with x and so they will
[2:48:02] be so they're going to spend
[2:48:04] the next few months evaluating
[2:48:06] relationships and kind
[2:48:07] of figure out what seats need
[2:48:08] to be filled what because they
[2:48:10] they need to be in my mind the
[2:48:14] different cohorts that they
[2:48:15] advocate for or have
[2:48:16] information about or have
[2:48:17] information about us and so
[2:48:19] monica can share what they'll
[2:48:22] be a probably 7 to 10 people on
[2:48:24] that first cohort just to get
[2:48:26] the momentum going and they're
[2:48:28] using their community forums to
[2:48:29] build relationships with people
[2:48:31] and they already have existing
[2:48:32] relationships with community
[2:48:33] members. Monica would you like
[2:48:34] to share? >> >> thank you very
[2:48:40] much and yes, to matt's point,
[2:48:43] we are actually building out
[2:48:45] the framework for this advisory
[2:48:47] group and looking at some other
[2:48:49] organizations that have such a
[2:48:52] group in place to look at their
[2:48:53] baseline, what the application
[2:48:55] process looks like and the
[2:48:57] representation for that
[2:48:59] particular group. So john and I
[2:49:01] have discussed briefly again
[2:49:03] how to get this established by
[2:49:05] the end of this year and are
[2:49:07] working to build out those
[2:49:09] pieces to make it a solid group
[2:49:11] to help us move forward in the
[2:49:12] community. Appreciate your
[2:49:15] response but I don't think
[2:49:16] my question was answered how
[2:49:17] are the individuals who have
[2:49:18] been raising concerns about
[2:49:19] transparency going to be
[2:49:21] included in this process? I
[2:49:25] think depending on how this
[2:49:27] group is formatted, will they
[2:49:29] communicate with the group?
[2:49:31] will that be relayed to the the
[2:49:33] shelter itself? I think we're
[2:49:34] still building that out. So
[2:49:35] definitely transparency is key
[2:49:37] for everything and what does
[2:49:39] that look like and what
[2:49:40] specifically are they looking
[2:49:42] for the transparency on that
[2:49:43] we're already reporting. So as
[2:49:45] far as the group like I said,
[2:49:46] we're building that out so we
[2:49:47] we will have to build that into
[2:49:49] it and get some feedback on how
[2:49:51] to do that from the the group
[2:49:52] >> because perhaps if since
[2:49:55] they'll be in front of the nsc
[2:49:56] in just about six weeks time
[2:49:59] perhaps if they have a slide on
[2:50:00] what they think their initial
[2:50:01] thoughts are on that so they
[2:50:02] can get both your feedback
[2:50:04] feedback and community feedback
[2:50:05] on what their thoughts are,
[2:50:07] they can have a little more
[2:50:08] better form thought for you
[2:50:09] know >> the reason why I
[2:50:10] mentioned this is because I
[2:50:11] believe months ago I had asked
[2:50:14] and the community had asked for
[2:50:15] a community >> advisory group
[2:50:16] and then I believe the
[2:50:17] administration pushed back and
[2:50:18] then we had these town halls
[2:50:19] and then surprise, surprise now
[2:50:22] we're being called upon to do
[2:50:23] this community >> advisory
[2:50:24] group and I would have
[2:50:24] appreciated if we would have
[2:50:26] went forward months ago since I
[2:50:27] asked for it and now we are
[2:50:29] doing it and what I don't want
[2:50:30] to happen is for individuals to
[2:50:32] feel like this community
[2:50:35] advisory group was hand-picked
[2:50:36] by the administration. I want
[2:50:38] to make sure that it is made up
[2:50:39] of also the individuals who are
[2:50:41] raising concerns and I think if
[2:50:43] it's not if we don't include >>
[2:50:46] those type of individuals then
[2:50:47] the integrity of the community
[2:50:49] advisory group is in question.
[2:50:51] I want to be clear about that
[2:50:54] received >> okay. Thank you. >>
[2:50:56] what authority or role will
[2:50:57] that group actually have
[2:50:59] because I want >> to make sure
[2:51:00] as I as I mentioned that we're
[2:51:03] not doing any things for show.
[2:51:06] I want to make sure that
[2:51:07] there's actual concrete
[2:51:08] opportunities for people to
[2:51:10] provide recommendations and
[2:51:11] feedback and then that feedback
[2:51:13] will actually influence policy
[2:51:15] or operations. And so how are
[2:51:17] we going to make sure that that
[2:51:18] happens? So absolutely
[2:51:24] recommendations and feedback
[2:51:26] and then that will be viewed in
[2:51:27] conjunction with the operating
[2:51:30] procedures for the shelter and
[2:51:33] reviewed as such. So this
[2:51:35] particular group would not be
[2:51:38] have power in that regard. It's
[2:51:40] it's an advisory group. Let's
[2:51:42] communicate, let's talk let's
[2:51:44] build a better shelter. Let's
[2:51:46] build a better san jose. Okay
[2:51:49] but what okay they're an
[2:51:50] advisory group they're
[2:51:51] recommendations that are
[2:51:53] provided during the meetings.
[2:51:54] where does that go? Is that
[2:51:55] shared to the council? Is that
[2:51:56] reviewed by nsc? I want to make
[2:51:59] sure that this >> isn't just
[2:52:00] discussions and then there's no
[2:52:02] action items or no follow
[2:52:03] through. >> that's a great
[2:52:06] point and I guess that's what
[2:52:07] we'll build in when we have
[2:52:09] this product for october to
[2:52:10] share. Thank you. That's what I
[2:52:12] was I >> was looking for. We've
[2:52:13] talked about increasing the
[2:52:14] number of rescue partnerships
[2:52:16] but how are we measuring the
[2:52:18] quality of those relationships?
[2:52:19] are we regularly seeking
[2:52:21] feedback from our rescue
[2:52:22] partners on what's working,
[2:52:24] what isn't working and what
[2:52:25] barriers are preventing them
[2:52:27] from taking in more animals? >>
[2:52:29] we currently have a monthly
[2:52:31] rescue partner meeting that's
[2:52:33] been going on for the last
[2:52:34] couple of months with it's with
[2:52:36] our current rescue partners and
[2:52:38] I leave the meeting there's a
[2:52:40] meeting this thursday and there
[2:52:41] will be a survey a satisfaction
[2:52:43] survey to highlight some pain
[2:52:46] points or what's working well
[2:52:47] and assess some of their needs
[2:52:49] and recommendations from those
[2:52:50] groups. And then we're also
[2:52:52] looking at how many new groups
[2:52:53] we've added, how many active
[2:52:55] rescue partners we have because
[2:52:57] there are partners that haven't
[2:52:59] taken any animals for some
[2:53:00] time. And so again building on
[2:53:03] that platform and regular
[2:53:05] communication. >> thank you. I
[2:53:07] appreciate that answer. The
[2:53:09] grand jury also recommended
[2:53:10] quarterly reporting on the
[2:53:11] number of animals turned away
[2:53:13] because >> of capacity staff is
[2:53:15] proposing to collect that
[2:53:16] information reported annually
[2:53:18] rather than bringing in
[2:53:19] quarterly reports to committee.
[2:53:21] I understand that quarterly
[2:53:23] reports is is more work for
[2:53:25] staff but if we're already
[2:53:27] collecting this data is there a
[2:53:28] way to automate or publish more
[2:53:30] frequently without requiring
[2:53:31] staff to prepare a separate
[2:53:32] report each time? I would
[2:53:36] presume that we'd end up
[2:53:37] getting someplace like a
[2:53:38] dashboard like we have now
[2:53:40] which has active transmission
[2:53:41] of information in terms of I
[2:53:45] don't it's a it's an
[2:53:46] interesting single metric
[2:53:49] of what the activity is at the
[2:53:50] shelter. There are so many
[2:53:51] other activities in addition to
[2:53:53] healthy animals if you look
[2:53:55] at the recommendation is
[2:53:56] healthy animals that are turned
[2:53:57] away from the shelter due to
[2:53:58] capacity. It's a very narrow
[2:54:00] thing compared to all of the
[2:54:01] other lives that they touch
[2:54:03] there and so to have that as a
[2:54:05] regular report issued to a
[2:54:07] committee or council seems a
[2:54:08] little bit odd considering
[2:54:09] compared to compared to all
[2:54:10] of the other things and so they
[2:54:12] need to work on gathering it,
[2:54:13] make sure they have the data
[2:54:14] feed and the collection correct
[2:54:15] and then publish probably a
[2:54:17] dashboard or some other kind
[2:54:18] of report likely. But the again
[2:54:20] regulated consistent
[2:54:21] information usually hits at the
[2:54:23] annual report for how many in
[2:54:24] total? So as long as it's being
[2:54:27] reported and shared in a
[2:54:28] dashboard or something like
[2:54:29] that, I think that's fine. The
[2:54:30] report also >> speaks to the
[2:54:32] staffing and capacity
[2:54:33] challenges at the shelter as we
[2:54:35] ask staff to improve
[2:54:37] transparency, expand services
[2:54:38] and strengthen rescue
[2:54:40] partnerships and implement
[2:54:41] these recommendations. Do we
[2:54:42] currently have the staffing in
[2:54:44] resources to realistically do
[2:54:46] all that and if not, what are
[2:54:48] the biggest gaps that the
[2:54:49] council >> should be aware of?
[2:54:55] well I'll go first in the
[2:54:56] monitoring. Yeah. So we have a
[2:55:00] very low vacancy rate at animal
[2:55:02] care and services compared to
[2:55:03] other positions in the city. I
[2:55:05] would say most of the city has
[2:55:06] decreased their vacancy rate
[2:55:07] but when it was in public works
[2:55:10] and pureness has the same
[2:55:11] approach likely is to have a
[2:55:13] very aggressive recruiting
[2:55:16] footprint in terms of filling
[2:55:18] vacancies for that service. I
[2:55:22] think the community survey will
[2:55:23] indicate where the biggest gaps
[2:55:25] are compared to what we
[2:55:25] currently have in terms
[2:55:27] of service delivery in terms
[2:55:29] of what the what the community
[2:55:30] needs and then with council we
[2:55:34] can define what is the role
[2:55:36] of san jose's animal shelter in
[2:55:38] filling that role that need.
[2:55:40] and so I think it's a little
[2:55:41] premature to say what the
[2:55:42] biggest gap is some of the
[2:55:43] hardest things to recruit I can
[2:55:45] talk to that registered vet
[2:55:47] techs and veterinarians are the
[2:55:48] two hardest classifications to
[2:55:50] recruit. We're always
[2:55:51] recruiting for animal care
[2:55:52] attendants because it's a very
[2:55:53] transient class because they're
[2:55:55] very new workers in the work
[2:55:56] environment and so they find
[2:55:58] out that the job is not for
[2:55:59] them and they move on or and so
[2:56:01] we have a lot of movement
[2:56:02] there. But the hardest to
[2:56:03] recruit still remains
[2:56:04] veterinarians, even part time
[2:56:06] veterinarians we've been
[2:56:07] recruiting for those endlessly
[2:56:08] seeking and interviewing
[2:56:10] monthly or every other month
[2:56:11] new vet to try to get through.
[2:56:13] we've tried multiple things and
[2:56:14] they're going to continue to
[2:56:15] try multiple things to get
[2:56:16] that. All right. I might
[2:56:18] my light is blinking so it's
[2:56:20] my last question on >> spay and
[2:56:21] neuter services council has
[2:56:23] already approved additional
[2:56:24] funding to expand capacity. Can
[2:56:27] you talk about what we can
[2:56:27] expect to >> see in terms
[2:56:29] of expanded spay and neuter
[2:56:30] services over the next few
[2:56:31] months? And as we increase that
[2:56:33] capacity, do we have a sense
[2:56:34] of what >> level of service we
[2:56:35] ultimately need to reach to
[2:56:37] meaningfully reduce the number
[2:56:39] of animals entering our
[2:56:40] shelter? Well, monica gets the
[2:56:41] specifics. I think I answered
[2:56:42] that in part to the mayor not
[2:56:44] to try to punt off the question
[2:56:45] is we do believe that increase
[2:56:49] spay neuter is a is a need for
[2:56:50] the community and the shelter
[2:56:52] is committed to doing more. And
[2:56:54] so in october when they're in
[2:56:57] front of you at a.s. They'll
[2:56:58] presenting this is what we
[2:56:59] achieved and this is the target
[2:57:00] and this is what we expect in
[2:57:01] terms of growth. This is what
[2:57:03] we're targeting for additional
[2:57:04] resources. I know they're
[2:57:05] soliciting additional vendors
[2:57:07] to help support in that because
[2:57:08] that's specifically what the
[2:57:09] budget was targeted for and so
[2:57:11] we're going to see what that
[2:57:13] number gets us, what that
[2:57:14] dollar amount that was
[2:57:14] provided, how many more spay
[2:57:16] neuter surgeries can be
[2:57:17] provided with that and that'll
[2:57:18] get reported to the committee
[2:57:19] in october. Thank you.
[2:57:21] appreciate the presentation.
[2:57:22] look forward to my colleagues
[2:57:23] questions. Councilmember mayor
[2:57:27] if I would like to address a
[2:57:28] little bit of the community
[2:57:29] engagement questions that you
[2:57:30] had and clearly we're still
[2:57:32] working out a lot of the
[2:57:32] details. Right. So we're not
[2:57:34] prepared just right today to
[2:57:36] kind of give you all the the
[2:57:37] logistical but I do want to
[2:57:39] address a dynamic that is it's
[2:57:42] easy to talk about and harder
[2:57:44] to do. You know, when you know,
[2:57:46] I want to I want to be >> real
[2:57:48] clear that staff is is
[2:57:50] completely open to critical
[2:57:52] opinions, perspectives, ideas,
[2:57:54] even contrarian ideas. Steph is
[2:57:56] definitely open to that. Where
[2:57:59] it's >> problematic is when
[2:58:02] some of those perspectives or
[2:58:03] the advice is in all comes from
[2:58:05] an all or nothing approach or
[2:58:06] comes from a we want you to
[2:58:08] hire this person and fire this
[2:58:10] person and where where some
[2:58:11] of the lines get blurred. And
[2:58:13] so I just want to kind of, you
[2:58:16] know, put the caveat out there
[2:58:17] that as we convene this group
[2:58:19] we need to find people that
[2:58:20] understand that transparency
[2:58:22] goes two ways, communication
[2:58:24] goes two ways trust is built
[2:58:27] two ways and unless people
[2:58:30] including us, the city are
[2:58:31] willing to kind of come to this
[2:58:33] work in a way in a manner where
[2:58:35] we're putting the best
[2:58:36] interests of the animals under
[2:58:38] our care first then I think it
[2:58:40] will be successful otherwise
[2:58:41] we'll end up in this continual
[2:58:43] stalemate. I will say that
[2:58:45] there are a lot of other
[2:58:47] perspectives that you won't
[2:58:48] hear today or you won't hear
[2:58:49] publicly because it's very
[2:58:50] difficult for someone to come
[2:58:51] up and say you know what, we
[2:58:53] support staff in these
[2:58:54] different efforts. But anyway,
[2:58:56] I just wanted to highlight the
[2:58:57] obvious because that is a
[2:58:59] dynamic that we rarely talk
[2:59:01] about but it plays out on a
[2:59:02] daily basis and is very tough
[2:59:05] on staff to to work in that
[2:59:07] environment where it's all or
[2:59:08] nothing. There's a lot of gray
[2:59:10] area here that we've got to
[2:59:11] navigate and so I just wanted
[2:59:12] to kind of just put that out
[2:59:13] there because this will be
[2:59:15] tough work. No, I totally
[2:59:17] understand that angel and I
[2:59:19] think that is fair. I just want
[2:59:22] to make sure that as we do this
[2:59:24] community advisory group we do
[2:59:27] so by choosing individuals from
[2:59:29] all different sides of the
[2:59:30] aisle and all different
[2:59:32] perspectives >> because you
[2:59:34] know then there will be
[2:59:35] questions about the integrity
[2:59:37] of the committee and you know,
[2:59:38] to be brutally honest I have to
[2:59:39] work with people who don't
[2:59:41] agree with my votes, who don't
[2:59:42] agree with what I've done as a
[2:59:44] council member. That's called
[2:59:45] being a public servant. And so
[2:59:47] unfortunately we we have to do
[2:59:49] hard things. And you know, you
[2:59:50] mentioned, you know, people
[2:59:52] talking >> about hire and fire.
[2:59:54] this has been >> going on for
[2:59:55] years. You know this was going
[2:59:57] on in my council office.
[2:59:59] somebody would have recalled
[3:00:00] me somebody or I wouldn't have
[3:00:01] got elected. And so there is a
[3:00:03] question about and I know
[3:00:04] monica you're new but to
[3:00:06] me personally >> there is a
[3:00:07] question about how can we
[3:00:08] continue to be in the news, how
[3:00:09] can we continue to have
[3:00:10] problems and nobody has lost
[3:00:12] their job that that is that is
[3:00:14] a concern for me and I've
[3:00:15] personally mentioned that to
[3:00:16] matt. Thank you. Thanks,
[3:00:20] councilmember >>. Appreciate
[3:00:20] your good questions and
[3:00:22] advocacy. Let me turn now to to
[3:00:24] one >> thank >> you mayor.
[3:00:29] thank you to the speakers and
[3:00:31] the volunteer hours and the
[3:00:33] rescue partner that come out
[3:00:35] and address your concern. I'd
[3:00:40] like to thank the staff for the
[3:00:41] report and the work to have
[3:00:43] gone through the audits and we
[3:00:46] revise and hopefully we can
[3:00:48] find a better solution and I
[3:00:51] know that sometimes that
[3:00:53] solution may not meet the
[3:00:56] perception or understand
[3:00:57] of other but we'll do our best.
[3:01:00] but in november 2020 for
[3:01:02] my office along with
[3:01:04] councilmember combet,
[3:01:06] councilmember ortiz and the
[3:01:07] mayor brought forth a memo
[3:01:09] regarding you know, the
[3:01:11] san jose animal care services
[3:01:13] audit and those audit was >>
[3:01:15] very clear on a lot of issues
[3:01:18] that we need to work on and to
[3:01:20] now >> I believe how many those
[3:01:23] >> audits recommendation >>
[3:01:25] have we completed all of them.
[3:01:27] all of them okay that's that's
[3:01:31] thank you for doing that and
[3:01:33] even then we still have other
[3:01:34] work to do. And >> in that memo
[3:01:38] that we put out in 2000 2424 we
[3:01:42] call for a work plan to expand
[3:01:44] the low cost space and neuters
[3:01:46] and so on and I understand that
[3:01:48] you're working with milpitas as
[3:01:50] well as private vet to do those
[3:01:55] spaces and neuter is is that
[3:01:58] correct? We are contracted with
[3:02:01] the city of milpitas to provide
[3:02:02] them sheltering and animal
[3:02:04] control services for the city.
[3:02:07] at times we have we do have a
[3:02:08] contract with a organization
[3:02:10] humane society of silicon
[3:02:11] valley in milpitas and we have
[3:02:14] contract we are we can have
[3:02:15] animals had certain given
[3:02:18] surgery there at that location.
[3:02:21] they have done surgeries at our
[3:02:23] location using our facility but
[3:02:26] we are not this is not for the
[3:02:28] city in general but okay have
[3:02:32] you prioritize the the rescue
[3:02:37] partner or identified certain
[3:02:40] particular rescue partner group
[3:02:42] that we could collaborate and
[3:02:45] partner with to to reduce that
[3:02:47] amount of you know, the stray
[3:02:50] cats and dogs if you will? I'll
[3:02:55] start monica can clean it up
[3:02:56] and she'll get it right and
[3:02:57] homeless we I believe we had
[3:03:00] over the highest record
[3:03:02] of animal partnerships rescue
[3:03:04] partnerships last year than we
[3:03:05] had in year four and again I'll
[3:03:07] say one of our dog rescues
[3:03:09] rescued more dogs last year
[3:03:11] than any species in the last
[3:03:12] five years and that was a new
[3:03:14] relationship that was formed in
[3:03:15] the last two years. And so they
[3:03:18] had almost 400 animals that
[3:03:20] were rescued by that one
[3:03:21] organization last year and they
[3:03:23] continue to seek more. They
[3:03:24] continue to do better. They
[3:03:26] continue to build on those
[3:03:27] relationships on all species,
[3:03:28] both cats and dogs and it is a
[3:03:31] continued relationship building
[3:03:33] effort that they're working on.
[3:03:38] I was just going to say as I'm
[3:03:39] poring over the data for last
[3:03:41] year, I do believe the rescue
[3:03:44] numbers were up almost 500 last
[3:03:47] fiscal year over the year
[3:03:48] prior. So again continuing to
[3:03:50] build those relationships.
[3:03:53] thank >> you. And I know
[3:03:55] there's a lot of been changes
[3:03:56] with the strikes and I know
[3:03:59] that we're under you guys are
[3:04:00] underneath pureness but there's
[3:04:04] an ongoing issues about
[3:04:07] transparency. How >> do you
[3:04:12] know the the perception out
[3:04:13] there that we're not doing
[3:04:15] enough? How do we get our
[3:04:17] partnership together including
[3:04:19] the public to volunteer to have
[3:04:23] a forum where it can be
[3:04:25] publicized with action item an
[3:04:29] implementation of those action
[3:04:31] item and what is the end result
[3:04:33] ? Couple of things there. I do
[3:04:40] believe recommendation in one
[3:04:42] of the fives were the doing a
[3:04:44] community survey of really very
[3:04:47] clearly understanding what the
[3:04:49] problem set is so that it's a
[3:04:51] measurable target instead
[3:04:53] of just more. Many times we
[3:04:55] agree that more things need to
[3:04:56] be done in particular areas and
[3:04:58] specific areas but that you
[3:05:00] need to do more of this what
[3:05:01] are we shooting at and then
[3:05:03] because we need to be able to
[3:05:04] provide you this is the gap
[3:05:06] between what the community
[3:05:07] needs are and what we're able
[3:05:08] to do with our current
[3:05:09] resources. So you have the
[3:05:11] choices to influence whether
[3:05:13] there's a policy need there or
[3:05:15] augmentation in terms
[3:05:16] of resources or if we're
[3:05:17] hitting the target. I we've
[3:05:19] thought this for years but we
[3:05:20] had so many other things to
[3:05:21] work on that were more urgent.
[3:05:23] but now we're at this place,
[3:05:24] we're studying that and making
[3:05:26] sure we understand what the
[3:05:27] community needs in very
[3:05:29] particular and detailed ways
[3:05:30] across all these different
[3:05:32] streams of service is very
[3:05:33] important and it's timely. >>
[3:05:36] thank you. I know the we offer
[3:05:40] euthanized service to the the
[3:05:43] owner or the family of the pet
[3:05:45] cats or dogs. We I know that we
[3:05:52] don't allow family members to
[3:05:54] be in there but other occurs
[3:05:56] does how can we change the
[3:05:59] process to allow grieving
[3:06:04] family members to hold their
[3:06:05] pets and you know, say goodbye?
[3:06:09] well, there you know, with the
[3:06:10] service that we have I think
[3:06:15] that would be something we
[3:06:16] would need to look at staffing
[3:06:18] capacity because it does
[3:06:20] require more staffing for that.
[3:06:23] and so if that's something that
[3:06:24] we need to put on the horizon
[3:06:26] for down the road, absolutely.
[3:06:28] but it does require a different
[3:06:29] level of staffing to
[3:06:31] accommodate that sort
[3:06:33] of feature in a shelter and
[3:06:35] coming from a shelter where we
[3:06:37] did provide that it does take
[3:06:38] more staffing and support in
[3:06:40] that regard. >> all right. Well
[3:06:42] thank you for looking into
[3:06:43] that. And the last question I
[3:06:45] have is how many volunteers can
[3:06:48] we accept and how many
[3:06:49] volunteers do we have now >>
[3:06:53] the last count I have was 300
[3:06:55] active volunteers not including
[3:06:58] fosters and we definitely want
[3:07:01] to bump up that number. We have
[3:07:03] volunteer orientation this
[3:07:06] saturday and they're done in
[3:07:07] person now so we do invite
[3:07:09] folks to come down, attend
[3:07:11] volunteer one on one general
[3:07:12] orientation and I'd love to see
[3:07:14] that number grow pretty
[3:07:16] dramatically to get up there to
[3:07:19] help with the animals and serve
[3:07:21] the community better. >> thank
[3:07:23] you very much. And with that I
[3:07:25] move to accept the report. >>
[3:07:28] thanks councilmember. Okay,
[3:07:31] we're going to kill some. Okay
[3:07:33] . Thank you, mayor. Thank you,
[3:07:38] monica, matt and angel all for
[3:07:41] the report today. I think this
[3:07:44] is sort of a jason to council
[3:07:47] member or tease and I think
[3:07:48] maybe councilmember doogan just
[3:07:51] sort of picked up on it with
[3:07:52] you. Monica, you know the
[3:07:55] volunteer piece, right? We've
[3:07:57] heard some mixed commentary
[3:07:59] from even our volunteers that
[3:08:01] were here today as a former
[3:08:05] executive director of an
[3:08:06] organization that could not
[3:08:08] have survived without
[3:08:09] volunteers and served on boards
[3:08:12] with very similar
[3:08:13] organizations. I'm curious
[3:08:16] whether we're staffed for that
[3:08:20] kind of management
[3:08:21] of volunteers and I apologize I
[3:08:23] didn't ask this question before
[3:08:26] today but can you talk about
[3:08:28] you know, how we do that
[3:08:30] in-house in terms of, you know,
[3:08:33] volunteers oftentimes, you
[3:08:35] know, they want to be treated
[3:08:36] like employees in many cases
[3:08:38] they want responsibilities and
[3:08:41] therefore they want input and
[3:08:43] that requires, you know,
[3:08:45] management of the volunteer
[3:08:47] program. Do we have that set up
[3:08:49] at the shelter today or is that
[3:08:51] something you're consider green
[3:08:53] >> at this time with the number
[3:08:58] of volunteers we currently
[3:08:59] have, we are staffed for that
[3:09:02] capability. We are reallocating
[3:09:07] volunteers to >> their
[3:09:10] coordinators. For example, if
[3:09:11] you're a dog volunteer once
[3:09:14] you're onboarded with the
[3:09:16] volunteer coordinator and that
[3:09:17] handles the administration
[3:09:19] of the volunteer program then
[3:09:20] you go with the dog coordinator
[3:09:22] team or you're with the dog
[3:09:23] team. So we have reallocated
[3:09:26] that resource so it just does
[3:09:27] not fall under one individual
[3:09:29] the volunteer coordinator and
[3:09:31] the same goes for the cat team
[3:09:33] or the smalls team and those
[3:09:35] are the main three teams but
[3:09:37] the other training teams again
[3:09:39] they're with coordinators in
[3:09:40] that unit in the shelter
[3:09:42] operation so they can have more
[3:09:44] support and work more
[3:09:46] cohesively as a as a unit so
[3:09:49] all dogs and cats have their
[3:09:51] own volunteers and staff
[3:09:52] members. So >>
[3:09:54] councilmember ortiz, I don't
[3:09:55] know if you were sort
[3:09:55] of formally requesting them to
[3:09:58] kind of report out to you on
[3:10:00] the you know, the sort of the
[3:10:03] advocacy group that you were
[3:10:05] talking about. But if it if you
[3:10:07] were us and and I'm not on the
[3:10:10] committee see I'd like to sort
[3:10:14] of hear the next step on the
[3:10:16] volunteer piece. I just think
[3:10:18] it's one of those things that
[3:10:19] organizations overlook when
[3:10:23] when staff is there voluntarily
[3:10:25] I.e. Free sometimes we lose
[3:10:27] sight of the fact that they
[3:10:28] still need to be heard managed
[3:10:31] and you know, rewarded for the
[3:10:34] work they're doing and not all
[3:10:36] volunteers are created equally.
[3:10:38] most are not going to want to
[3:10:39] be on an advocacy committee.
[3:10:41] many people want to come walk a
[3:10:42] dog you know, see other
[3:10:45] advocates or excuse me other
[3:10:47] volunteers and move on. But and
[3:10:49] so for those I think we need to
[3:10:51] make sure we've got the support
[3:10:52] of that part of the system
[3:10:54] down. So I'd be interested in
[3:10:56] kind of hearing that next step.
[3:10:58] if >> I could just add one
[3:10:59] thing. One of the things that
[3:11:01] made monica stand out in the
[3:11:03] recruitment of her for this
[3:11:04] role was her again not saying
[3:11:07] exactly what happened in the
[3:11:08] interview but it was just her
[3:11:09] advocacy for the importance
[3:11:11] of solving problems with staff
[3:11:13] and volunteers. And so it was
[3:11:16] really this that you have to
[3:11:17] apply that volunteer muscle as
[3:11:18] well as the staff also by
[3:11:20] themselves ourselves
[3:11:21] at shelters we cannot do it.
[3:11:23] and so that's where that
[3:11:24] advocacy for volunteer is being
[3:11:26] a critical part of that is
[3:11:28] right on point and right
[3:11:29] at monica's ellie thanks >>
[3:11:31] matt. I do want to just take a
[3:11:32] moment and recognize x we had a
[3:11:36] very difficult situation in our
[3:11:38] district with a very difficult
[3:11:43] owner of let's say a lot
[3:11:45] of animals and you know, I
[3:11:47] didn't really realize the
[3:11:48] extent of the services and you
[3:11:50] know the work you're doing out
[3:11:52] of the shelter and I just want
[3:11:53] to recognize the really good
[3:11:55] work of asis in that regard. So
[3:11:57] thank >> you. Yeah, I'd just
[3:11:58] like to say that the work that
[3:11:59] we have to do in the community
[3:12:00] and the animal control piece
[3:12:02] the public safety matters is
[3:12:04] of extreme importance and with
[3:12:06] our partners across the
[3:12:07] organization and housing npr
[3:12:09] west to both serve the people
[3:12:12] who are unhoused or under
[3:12:13] housed and their animals and
[3:12:16] with pureness in their beautify
[3:12:18] team when we have to do
[3:12:20] abatements we all do these
[3:12:21] things hand in glove and it
[3:12:23] really is a critical part and
[3:12:24] our field services are critical
[3:12:25] to that public safety mix and
[3:12:27] we appreciate the outlook for
[3:12:28] that. >> thank you. Thanks
[3:12:32] councilmember. Let's go to
[3:12:32] councilor condo's thank you
[3:12:35] mayor know my appreciation matt
[3:12:36] and monica for your report as
[3:12:38] well as other advocates who
[3:12:39] came out to speak on this item.
[3:12:41] you know, I know the mayor
[3:12:42] already touched on the tnr
[3:12:44] program but I did want to echo
[3:12:46] that as as a member of a.c. You
[3:12:49] know, I do look forward to
[3:12:50] ensuring the ramp up numbers
[3:12:51] and especially what we heard
[3:12:53] from folks is we're not
[3:12:54] utilizing all the slots that
[3:12:56] that we that we can to make
[3:12:58] sure that we're filling that
[3:12:59] need in our community. So I'll
[3:13:02] wait for that october report
[3:13:03] and and make sure that we're
[3:13:06] we're leaning in on that and
[3:13:07] then you know, I also wanted to
[3:13:09] bold and underline closing that
[3:13:11] quote unquote trust gap between
[3:13:15] as jay as jax and our advocacy
[3:13:17] advocate and yes, it's going to
[3:13:19] be >> going along with the nsc
[3:13:23] report that was mentioned in
[3:13:25] the audit in october but also
[3:13:27] the relationships and
[3:13:28] communication that goes beyond
[3:13:30] just a verbal report
[3:13:32] establishing what we did. You
[3:13:34] know, some of the some of those
[3:13:35] relationships extend beyond
[3:13:37] just here's here's the bare
[3:13:38] minimum. And I think, you know
[3:13:40] I'm angel thank you deputy city
[3:13:43] manager angel >> for for
[3:13:44] touching on on that especially
[3:13:46] the comments as it relates to
[3:13:47] that pressure dynamic and
[3:13:49] working with folks who you know
[3:13:51] are passionate but you know are
[3:13:52] critical and I think to
[3:13:54] councilmember ortiz and
[3:13:56] mulcahy's point I think that's
[3:13:57] that's part of it and look
[3:13:59] forward to keeping abreast
[3:14:00] of that as well and I know the
[3:14:02] animal control piece is
[3:14:04] something that we've we've
[3:14:05] heard and this this report
[3:14:08] doesn't explicitly call that
[3:14:09] out but we have I have heard
[3:14:11] from from from residents on
[3:14:12] that process and specifically
[3:14:14] with the transparency piece on
[3:14:16] when we have an incident with
[3:14:17] animal control and the
[3:14:18] communication with our
[3:14:19] residents. But I'll wait for
[3:14:20] that october report to to to
[3:14:23] ask specific questions on that
[3:14:24] because I wanted to get my keep
[3:14:25] my comments more tailored to
[3:14:26] the to the civil grand jury
[3:14:27] report. Thank you. >> thanks,
[3:14:31] councilmember. Last call for
[3:14:32] colleagues who want to chime in
[3:14:33] on this item. Okay. We have a
[3:14:35] motion from councilor dwan I
[3:14:37] believe toni let's vote. Are
[3:14:48] you seeing anything on your
[3:14:48] screens? Yes. Okay. And I see
[3:14:52] unanimous 1104 okay. Yeah. It's
[3:14:54] >> not working on my screen.
[3:14:55] I'll refresh but >> I see an 11
[3:14:57] a unanimous vote to adopt the
[3:14:59] response to the civil grand
[3:15:00] jury report. Thank you. >>
[3:15:02] thanks. Okay. Thank you, matt.
[3:15:07] monica so we're now on to item
[3:15:11] 10.2. This is the
[3:15:13] administrative hearing on the
[3:15:14] appeal of the environmental
[3:15:16] determination and site
[3:15:17] development permit for certain
[3:15:19] real property located at 1295
[3:15:21] kirchner avenue and we do have
[3:15:23] a staff presentation so once
[3:15:25] staff is ready you may proceed
[3:15:27] . >> and a reminder for those
[3:15:31] who wish to speak on the next
[3:15:33] item comment cards can be
[3:15:35] submitted at the top or bottom
[3:15:36] of the stairs here and just
[3:15:38] indicate your name and the item
[3:15:40] you wish to speak on. Thank
[3:15:41] you. >> hello. Good afternoon
[3:15:44] again. We're back with the same
[3:15:45] team to my right director chris
[3:15:47] burden or pdc I'm gonna send
[3:15:50] you deputy director of planning
[3:15:52] and to my left to have david
[3:15:53] keon, our principal planner
[3:15:55] with the environmental review
[3:15:56] team and john to division
[3:15:58] manager over the development
[3:15:59] services team. So the item
[3:16:01] before you today is the
[3:16:03] environmental and permit appeal
[3:16:05] of the director's decision on
[3:16:06] the site development permit and
[3:16:08] infill exemption for a
[3:16:10] residential project at 1295
[3:16:12] cotner avenue. The site is a.65
[3:16:17] gross acre site designated a
[3:16:19] residential neighborhood in the
[3:16:21] general plan and with the
[3:16:23] zoning of single family
[3:16:24] residence the project utilized
[3:16:26] state density bonus law to
[3:16:28] propose 12 units at the site by
[3:16:32] demolishing an existing single
[3:16:33] family home and removing 24
[3:16:36] trees that are proposed to be
[3:16:38] replaced. The site development
[3:16:40] sorry the state density bonus
[3:16:42] law application provides two
[3:16:44] affordable units one at the
[3:16:46] very low income which is 50 to
[3:16:48] 80% area median income levels
[3:16:51] and then one at the moderate
[3:16:53] income level which is 80 to
[3:16:54] 120% of the area median income.
[3:16:58] the project also requests
[3:16:59] avesta ing tentative map for a
[3:17:01] subdivision of the one lot the
[3:17:03] .65 acre lot into ten
[3:17:06] residential lots and one common
[3:17:08] area for a private street with
[3:17:10] access to individual garages.
[3:17:15] so the project was reviewed
[3:17:16] reviewed for consistency with
[3:17:18] the general plan does the
[3:17:20] municipal code are citywide
[3:17:22] designs standards and
[3:17:23] guidelines our public outreach
[3:17:25] policy the california
[3:17:27] environmental quality act as
[3:17:29] well as under a state density
[3:17:30] bonus law. The environmental
[3:17:34] review included a class 32
[3:17:36] infill exemption in accordance
[3:17:39] with the state california
[3:17:41] environmental quality act
[3:17:43] because the project was found
[3:17:45] to be consistent with the
[3:17:46] general plan and zoning and it
[3:17:49] develops and urban in lot which
[3:17:51] does not have any suitable
[3:17:52] habitat nor does it generate
[3:17:56] significant traffic noise
[3:17:58] air quality or water quality
[3:17:59] impacts. Existing utilities and
[3:18:02] other public services are
[3:18:03] available to serve the site and
[3:18:06] no impacts to historic
[3:18:07] resources were found. Nor was
[3:18:09] the site identified as a
[3:18:11] hazardous waste site. The
[3:18:14] director's hearing occurred on
[3:18:15] march 25th and several members
[3:18:19] of the public spoke on this
[3:18:20] item specifically there were
[3:18:22] concerns around traffic and
[3:18:23] safety especially during school
[3:18:26] drop off and pickup times the
[3:18:28] height of the project compared
[3:18:29] to nearby residences,
[3:18:31] construction noise and dust
[3:18:32] waivers from existing city
[3:18:34] standards in compatibility with
[3:18:36] surrounding uses and potential
[3:18:38] negative impacts on property
[3:18:40] values. There was also one
[3:18:42] supporter for the project who
[3:18:44] noted that it would provide
[3:18:46] housing opportunity in this
[3:18:47] area. The hearing officer
[3:18:49] approved the proposed site
[3:18:50] development permit and the
[3:18:51] infill exemption at that
[3:18:53] hearing which was subsequently
[3:18:55] appealed on march 29th and
[3:18:57] april 13th. Since these appeals
[3:19:00] included an appeal of the
[3:19:02] environmental review, these are
[3:19:03] being considered by the city
[3:19:05] council de novo as in to
[3:19:07] consider the whole action the
[3:19:10] appeal for the site development
[3:19:11] permit raised concerns or
[3:19:14] stated that the application was
[3:19:16] not compliant with the citywide
[3:19:18] standards, did not address
[3:19:20] traffic safety concerns. I
[3:19:23] stated that it was inadequate
[3:19:25] the meeting fire requirements
[3:19:27] etc. And then the infill
[3:19:29] exemption also said that the
[3:19:32] infill exemption should not
[3:19:34] have been used because
[3:19:35] of unusual circumstances on the
[3:19:36] site and for the failure to
[3:19:38] adequately analyze construction
[3:19:40] phase traffic impacts. There
[3:19:42] were also additional public
[3:19:44] health and safety concerns
[3:19:45] cited in these appeals staff's
[3:19:50] responses included in the memo
[3:19:52] to council to these appeal
[3:19:55] statements is to say that the
[3:19:57] say density bonus law is what
[3:20:00] allows for the waivers from the
[3:20:03] standards that the city has
[3:20:05] since the project is utilizing
[3:20:07] the city density bonus law to
[3:20:09] provide additional density. The
[3:20:11] project as proposed would not
[3:20:12] be able to build if all of the
[3:20:14] city standards were applied.
[3:20:16] therefore the city is required
[3:20:17] to grant that waiver unless
[3:20:19] there is a specific health and
[3:20:20] safety impact associated with
[3:20:22] that granting of that waiver.
[3:20:24] the fire department was
[3:20:25] consulted during the the review
[3:20:27] of this project and the permit
[3:20:30] was cleared by that department.
[3:20:33] compliance with applicable fire
[3:20:34] and building requirements will
[3:20:35] also be verified during the
[3:20:37] building stage there were no
[3:20:38] quantifiable health or safety
[3:20:40] risks that were identified
[3:20:42] during the planning review.
[3:20:44] public works and the department
[3:20:45] of transportation also reviewed
[3:20:47] the project for compliance with
[3:20:48] our traffic standards and the
[3:20:50] san jose's complete street
[3:20:51] design standards and the
[3:20:53] project did comply with those
[3:20:55] requirements. An individual
[3:20:57] site specific traffic impact
[3:20:59] analysis was not required
[3:21:00] because the project is below
[3:21:02] the threshold so we typically
[3:21:03] require those only if a project
[3:21:05] is 25 units or more. Since this
[3:21:07] project was only 12 units there
[3:21:09] was no site specific
[3:21:10] environmental review required.
[3:21:13] the school proximity does not
[3:21:16] particularly trigger additional
[3:21:18] review of the site. That was
[3:21:20] something that was cited. There
[3:21:21] was some state government
[3:21:23] code section cited in the
[3:21:24] appeal those are but those are
[3:21:26] applicable to schools sites not
[3:21:28] to individual private
[3:21:29] properties and then finally
[3:21:32] staff did provide the directors
[3:21:34] hearing recording which is
[3:21:35] posted during the appeal period
[3:21:37] and the project materials were
[3:21:38] also made available to the
[3:21:40] public before a city council
[3:21:41] meeting. This the response to
[3:21:46] the environmental appeal all
[3:21:47] the staff feels that the
[3:21:49] surrounding conditions and
[3:21:50] existing traffic concerns are
[3:21:52] not unusual circumstances. This
[3:21:54] is an infill project on within
[3:21:57] an urban neighborhood or a
[3:21:58] suburban neighborhood. It does
[3:22:00] not trigger any significant
[3:22:02] environmental effects as noted
[3:22:04] previously and construction
[3:22:06] related traffic is not a secure
[3:22:08] related transportation impact.
[3:22:10] typically when there is a
[3:22:11] construction our public works
[3:22:13] department would required
[3:22:14] construction management plans
[3:22:16] that address construction
[3:22:17] related to traffic issues and
[3:22:19] then the project buy in and
[3:22:21] of itself would not
[3:22:21] substantially increase any
[3:22:23] hazards and there are no
[3:22:25] anticipated health and safety
[3:22:26] impacts due to the project's
[3:22:27] size or location since it is
[3:22:31] therefore a staff recommends
[3:22:32] that the council deny the
[3:22:33] permit appeal and uphold the
[3:22:35] director's decision to approve
[3:22:37] the site development permit as
[3:22:38] well as the infill exemption
[3:22:40] for this project that concludes
[3:22:41] staff's presentation and be
[3:22:42] available for any questions.
[3:22:46] all right. Thank you for the
[3:22:46] presentation we have two
[3:22:49] appellants who combined >>
[3:22:51] we'll have five minutes and
[3:22:53] then the applicant will also
[3:22:54] have five minutes. So I'll
[3:22:56] start with the two appellants
[3:22:59] >> don't I don't know if
[3:23:05] they're here. Are the
[3:23:08] appellants here? Okay. We'll
[3:23:13] just pause for a moment or
[3:23:15] either of the appellants on
[3:23:18] this >> project in the chamber
[3:23:20] . Okay we can try one more time
[3:23:26] after the applicant but the
[3:23:28] applicant has up to five
[3:23:29] minutes to speak >>
[3:23:42] . Good evening. Thank you neera
[3:23:45] and staff for the presentation
[3:23:47] and thank you city council for
[3:23:49] hearing this appeal today.
[3:23:52] my name's cyrus and vice
[3:23:53] present development for city
[3:23:54] connect partners. We're
[3:23:56] san jose based real estate
[3:23:57] developers who are specifically
[3:24:00] focused on missing middle
[3:24:02] housing infill housing here in
[3:24:05] the bay area and just bringing
[3:24:07] access to for sale
[3:24:08] homeownership opportunities.
[3:24:11] this project at 1295 corner we
[3:24:13] love it's across the street
[3:24:14] from wattenberg park community
[3:24:17] garden and the middle and high
[3:24:19] school willow glen high schools
[3:24:21] and we're using state and city
[3:24:22] bronislaw as munir described to
[3:24:25] build 12 townhomes two of which
[3:24:28] will be below market rate and
[3:24:30] we're parking this quite
[3:24:31] generously right now 42 stores
[3:24:33] so it's around three and a half
[3:24:34] stalls per unit when as you
[3:24:37] know san jose has a zero
[3:24:39] parking requirement and using a
[3:24:42] density bonus this could be 18
[3:24:44] units using to use but we felt
[3:24:48] we've found a nice sweet spot
[3:24:50] that we think would complement
[3:24:52] the neighborhood. As I
[3:24:54] mentioned march 25th we
[3:24:56] received this to appeals or
[3:24:58] after the tentative map
[3:25:00] approval and one of the
[3:25:02] challenges that we're facing
[3:25:04] especially in this housing
[3:25:05] crisis that we all are dealing
[3:25:07] with is we have these two
[3:25:09] appeals that both each cost
[3:25:13] $250 per appealing on the
[3:25:16] developer side it costs us
[3:25:18] $15,000 per appeal so that's
[3:25:22] $30,000 and here we are august
[3:25:25] 18th to discuss this appeal
[3:25:27] from march 25th. So that's five
[3:25:30] months that we have just been
[3:25:32] kind of waiting around here in
[3:25:33] this window and I just if we're
[3:25:37] to approach this together to
[3:25:39] work with the city developers
[3:25:41] to bring thoughtful infill
[3:25:43] housing next to parks, next to
[3:25:45] schools, next to transit or and
[3:25:48] work where people want to raise
[3:25:50] families, create access to
[3:25:52] homeownership. This is
[3:25:53] something that we need to
[3:25:54] address so delays equal higher
[3:25:59] costs to build homes equals
[3:26:01] higher costs for these homes
[3:26:04] and that's where we are as
[3:26:05] you'll see in the next
[3:26:06] amendment our next agenda item
[3:26:09] even up zoning from r eight to
[3:26:12] r 32 is being proposed with the
[3:26:14] general plan amendment. That
[3:26:15] would mean we could have 21
[3:26:17] homes on this site. So we're
[3:26:19] really excited about this
[3:26:20] project. We hope your to keep
[3:26:23] it going to keep it moving
[3:26:24] forward. It's a shame that the
[3:26:27] opponents you know $250 each to
[3:26:31] produce document aren't even
[3:26:33] here to appeal so it's been
[3:26:35] five months where we've just
[3:26:36] been in this space so thank you
[3:26:38] again for your time and we
[3:26:40] appreciate it. Thanks for your
[3:26:43] time. The appellant is online.
[3:26:45] okay let's go to >> the
[3:26:47] appellant and again >> there's
[3:26:48] a total of five minutes I
[3:26:49] believe we have to have we
[3:26:51] located the other or is it just
[3:26:52] one? Well, the >> other two are
[3:26:54] not online that I see. I only
[3:26:56] have one christine >> one I
[3:26:59] mean start the timer for five
[3:27:00] minutes once again thank you
[3:27:04] but hi can everyone hear me?
[3:27:07] yes, yes. Hi. The crux of >>
[3:27:10] my environmental appeal against
[3:27:13] the 1295 quarter project has
[3:27:16] been existing traffic problems
[3:27:19] at this site. The project will
[3:27:21] permanently worsen these
[3:27:23] problems. I requested a formal
[3:27:25] traffic review before
[3:27:27] proceeding with the project
[3:27:30] today right at the city council
[3:27:33] meeting >> there was an active
[3:27:35] police investigation at the end
[3:27:37] of that intersection of the
[3:27:40] development the entire corner
[3:27:43] of kirchner and cordell was
[3:27:45] blocked off by police and
[3:27:48] helicopters were overhead. Two
[3:27:50] men were stabbed and went to
[3:27:53] hospitals in what nbc and many
[3:27:56] other outlets including mercury
[3:27:57] news say was road rage. Today's
[3:28:02] road rage incident leading to
[3:28:04] two stabbings is the exact
[3:28:07] intersection where neighbors
[3:28:09] have pleaded for a traffic
[3:28:11] study before proceeding. There
[3:28:14] should not be a vote until the
[3:28:16] evidence is clarified as to
[3:28:18] what happened at this road rage
[3:28:20] incident. This road rage
[3:28:22] incident involving >> stabbings
[3:28:24] not matter because there are
[3:28:25] less than 25 units. Are there
[3:28:27] two child injuries >> within
[3:28:30] six months unimportant because
[3:28:33] there are less than 20 >> five
[3:28:34] units. You don't >> have to do
[3:28:36] a traffic study but you should
[3:28:39] your close your eyes and you've
[3:28:40] never answered to explain all
[3:28:43] the child injuries or the >> or
[3:28:46] even this and then you continue
[3:28:48] to proceed saying there is no
[3:28:50] unusual traffic, there is no
[3:28:52] unusual there is this isn't
[3:28:54] corner according to you is not
[3:28:57] a major street. It's insane.
[3:29:05] are you done? I'm done. Okay.
[3:29:09] thank you. All right. Do we
[3:29:13] have the thank you. There was
[3:29:18] still time on the timer. Did
[3:29:20] you find the other appellant? I
[3:29:21] don't see their hands on line.
[3:29:23] I don't wait, there is a
[3:29:25] jenny I'm going to allow her to
[3:29:26] talk and see if that's jennifer
[3:29:28] can wait. Her hand just went
[3:29:29] up. >> can we confirm that that
[3:29:31] is yeah. Yeah. >> hi. Hi yes I
[3:29:34] am the other appellant yes. I
[3:29:36] echo all of christine's points
[3:29:38] and we've been saying the same
[3:29:39] thing the whole time that
[3:29:42] although there is no
[3:29:43] requirement >> to do a safety
[3:29:45] study at 12 units that this
[3:29:47] does seem to be an exception on
[3:29:50] >> the reports have said that
[3:29:51] this is considered a minor
[3:29:53] street. Both carter kirchner
[3:29:54] and cordoba. But we would argue
[3:29:56] at this particular intersection
[3:29:59] that it is a major thoroughfare
[3:30:01] and every single person that
[3:30:03] lives here understands that. So
[3:30:05] we are highly concerned about
[3:30:08] it getting passed without a
[3:30:10] safety study and that's what
[3:30:12] we're asking for. We're not
[3:30:13] saying completely stop this.
[3:30:15] we're saying please take a
[3:30:17] moment. So many of our children
[3:30:19] go here. We have seen so many
[3:30:21] accidents. We live right here.
[3:30:23] we are the first people on
[3:30:24] response when these things
[3:30:26] happen, please make sure it is
[3:30:28] safe. Thank you. Thank that I
[3:30:35] do. Okay let's proceed with
[3:30:37] public comment on this item.
[3:30:39] okay. Let me go through
[3:30:41] my script again. I'm not going
[3:30:44] to because I accidentally
[3:30:45] closed it and you guys heard
[3:30:46] the speech many times. You know
[3:30:48] we're going to call names come
[3:30:50] down to the microphone first
[3:30:51] one >> to speak. Please be
[3:30:53] respectful and speak on the
[3:30:55] topic. I have cleo sandra
[3:30:57] delvin no name it just as local
[3:31:02] subcontractor roberta moore,
[3:31:06] cyrus and alice come on down
[3:31:09] and then I'll go to the zoom
[3:31:11] commenters after these in
[3:31:13] person speakers. Thank you. And
[3:31:15] just a reminder comments tend
[3:31:17] to be specifically on item 10.2
[3:31:20] which is the property located
[3:31:22] at 1295 corner and then in the
[3:31:23] next item we'll get to the
[3:31:25] broader general plan issues.
[3:31:27] yes thank you. Well >> that is
[3:31:34] a lot of trees that I saw in
[3:31:35] the application be removed and
[3:31:38] last week or so you talked
[3:31:39] about tree canopy. This project
[3:31:42] is before you because of the
[3:31:43] actions of the developer has
[3:31:45] requested as well as a
[3:31:47] discretionary review process.
[3:31:50] this process allows the public
[3:31:52] opportunities to comment and
[3:31:53] receive notifications of things
[3:31:55] that will impact them. There
[3:31:58] there's a lot of mature trees
[3:32:00] and they're losing them.
[3:32:01] communities work better when
[3:32:04] residents are provided
[3:32:05] opportunities to be heard and
[3:32:07] have input on the projects that
[3:32:09] impact them every day or will
[3:32:11] in the future. I hope that you
[3:32:13] will still continue to have
[3:32:16] community input on projects in
[3:32:18] this city going forward. Thank
[3:32:20] you. Thank you. Your next
[3:32:22] speaker well >> I'm going to
[3:32:29] shock the out of you. These are
[3:32:32] the kind of projects that work
[3:32:37] parking. Thank you. I was going
[3:32:38] to comment all about parking
[3:32:42] and I want to say that I
[3:32:45] appreciate you having a public
[3:32:46] hearing. If 10.3 passes this
[3:32:50] will be eliminated. I want
[3:32:52] everyone to understand and that
[3:32:56] I do hope that you study and
[3:33:00] fix the traffic safety issue
[3:33:03] and you have the developer
[3:33:05] incorporate that in the cost
[3:33:07] of sale and kudos for building
[3:33:10] housing for homeownership.
[3:33:12] thank you. Thank you. Next
[3:33:16] speaker hi, I'm alice. I was
[3:33:21] shock I actually pulled up
[3:33:22] google just to look look
[3:33:24] at what it is. It's all in a
[3:33:26] single neighbor single family
[3:33:28] neighborhood. Okay. Do you live
[3:33:30] >> right next to a 12 unit
[3:33:32] apartment? Do you most people
[3:33:35] don't they don't expect you to
[3:33:37] be doing this. So >> I'm
[3:33:39] looking at it. Okay. So what's
[3:33:40] a benefit to two affordable
[3:33:43] housing? One is a moderate
[3:33:45] income. What are you are trying
[3:33:46] to achieve? Okay, this is just
[3:33:49] a developer stream and and
[3:33:51] aiming to destroy a single
[3:33:53] family neighborhood. How could
[3:33:56] you be allowing this kind
[3:33:57] of stuff to happen to san jose
[3:34:00] that is just not okay. Okay so
[3:34:03] I need >> you to go back to the
[3:34:05] drawing board to consider what
[3:34:08] a single family housing
[3:34:10] neighborhood looks like. We're
[3:34:12] you know, we have plenty
[3:34:14] of space if you want a higher
[3:34:16] density housing you can >>
[3:34:18] go somewhere else. Thank you.
[3:34:21] next speaker >> hi, my name is
[3:34:30] ron stern and I live 1275 or
[3:34:33] so. I shower a 100 foot fence
[3:34:35] with this guy and I'm telling
[3:34:37] you there's beautiful 100 year
[3:34:39] old trees on the property. So
[3:34:40] we're going to try to squeeze
[3:34:42] so much stuff in such a little
[3:34:44] spot. The traffic I don't know
[3:34:45] if any of you ever been down
[3:34:46] kirton around or cornell avenue
[3:34:48] during school you cannot move
[3:34:50] from kerner all the way to >>
[3:34:53] pine avenue. It's just a solid
[3:34:54] wall now they're talking about
[3:34:56] 30, 40, 50, 60 cars. They're
[3:34:58] talking about more people.
[3:35:00] they're talking about more
[3:35:01] congestion. I can't even back
[3:35:03] my car on to kirton or any more
[3:35:04] because of all the problems and
[3:35:06] I just find that nobody >>
[3:35:07] cares. Nobody you guys work for
[3:35:09] us. We don't work for you. We
[3:35:11] don't want this development in
[3:35:12] our neighborhood. This is a
[3:35:14] single family. It's been that
[3:35:16] way for a long time. I'm
[3:35:17] retired. I don't want to listen
[3:35:18] to building over the next 18
[3:35:20] months day and night I'm going
[3:35:21] to have to listen to saws
[3:35:23] sanding cars, trucks,
[3:35:25] everything and I my enjoyment
[3:35:27] and my property will be gone.
[3:35:29] and this is a 30 foot building
[3:35:31] right >> next to my fence 30ft
[3:35:33] . Thank you. That's your time.
[3:35:36] next speaker >> you okay? So
[3:35:41] I'm going to go to online I
[3:35:42] have been carter followed by
[3:35:45] brian van carter you're unmuted
[3:35:52] but we're not hearing you.
[3:35:58] okay. I'm going to move on to
[3:35:59] brian followed by gorman. Simon
[3:36:04] >> says to you but I'll keep it
[3:36:05] under one minute. I want to
[3:36:08] make sure that the people
[3:36:10] listen to what these people are
[3:36:11] saying. The owner has a right
[3:36:13] and we do need more housing but
[3:36:14] there's the infrastructure that
[3:36:15] you there's the infrastructure
[3:36:17] issue there. The there's a and
[3:36:22] the traffic studies that should
[3:36:24] be done and I have driven out
[3:36:26] there and I walk over there it
[3:36:28] is a very dangerous
[3:36:29] intersection. And so I mean you
[3:36:33] can't really do anything about
[3:36:34] it because of what the state
[3:36:35] did and the train it can talk
[3:36:39] to the state is beyond futile.
[3:36:42] so okay. Thank you. Hold on.
[3:36:48] gorman followed by blair hello.
[3:36:55] go ahead. Okay. Good afternoon,
[3:36:58] council members. I'm here today
[3:36:59] to oppose the development
[3:37:01] at 1295 new avenue. This is not
[3:37:03] simply about adding housing.
[3:37:05] it's about making sure that any
[3:37:07] development this size is
[3:37:08] appropriate for the location
[3:37:09] and the concerns of the people
[3:37:11] who actually live here. I
[3:37:12] genuinely heard kerner avenue
[3:37:14] was identified as part of the
[3:37:15] city's vision zero five year
[3:37:17] plan which recognizes the need
[3:37:19] to address dangerous weeds and
[3:37:20] prevent serious injuries and
[3:37:23] fatalities. Today we have an
[3:37:25] urgent reminder of why this
[3:37:26] matter. As you mentioned
[3:37:28] earlier, a stabbing occurred on
[3:37:29] the corner of kirton and
[3:37:30] connell following what has been
[3:37:31] reported as a road rage
[3:37:33] incident. I'm not suggesting
[3:37:35] that this development caused
[3:37:36] that incident but it
[3:37:37] underscores the real safety
[3:37:38] concerns surrounding traffic
[3:37:40] conditions and conflict in this
[3:37:41] area. It is a major thruway to
[3:37:44] freeway 87 and to 88 gold
[3:37:47] within one mile. And even if
[3:37:49] it's not required, do the right
[3:37:50] thing. Listen to your
[3:37:51] constituents and request for a
[3:37:55] traffic study. >> blair
[3:37:57] followed by toni >> by >> blair
[3:38:01] bateman. Nice to hear public
[3:38:03] comment on this item. It's >>
[3:38:06] an old issue good luck and a
[3:38:09] community process working to
[3:38:11] solve this issue. I'm really
[3:38:13] going to respect that if
[3:38:15] there's 100 year old trees
[3:38:16] there and it sounds like a
[3:38:17] number of them that has a
[3:38:19] certain precedence I think tree
[3:38:22] canopies have a certain
[3:38:23] precedence. Good luck in
[3:38:25] wanting to develop low and
[3:38:26] moderate income housing also. I
[3:38:29] hope we can be doing those
[3:38:30] things. It was stated that the
[3:38:33] land >> in this area is pretty
[3:38:35] clean and pretty clear. No
[3:38:38] environmental hazards. Serious.
[3:38:41] good luck if extra tests are
[3:38:42] needed. Our extra environmental
[3:38:45] tests are currently needed for
[3:38:47] the item of 10.1650 harry
[3:38:50] drive. Item I just thought I'd
[3:38:52] ask that. Thank you. >> thank
[3:38:54] you toni followed by venkata.
[3:39:03] hear me? Yes. Okay. Right.
[3:39:08] well, thank you for listening
[3:39:10] to us or to me for today. I
[3:39:14] oppose this tremendously. You
[3:39:16] can do a traffic thing but even
[3:39:18] with the traffic thing I think
[3:39:19] it's a poor decision if you
[3:39:20] want to put a couple units like
[3:39:22] four possibly that are lower no
[3:39:25] more than two stories I could
[3:39:27] understand that. But to put as
[3:39:29] many homes as you're doing and
[3:39:30] if the next thing is passed
[3:39:33] it'll be even worse because
[3:39:34] you'll try to put more in
[3:39:35] there. There is a school there
[3:39:38] and trust me I drive down. I do
[3:39:40] not even go near curtin or in
[3:39:42] carmel during school time. This
[3:39:44] is could be a terrible terrible
[3:39:46] mistake of putting this live in
[3:39:48] the school >> for them. Thank
[3:39:52] you laura >> followed by renee.
[3:40:03] laura, you're unmuted. Can you
[3:40:06] hear me? Yes. Okay. I was born
[3:40:09] >> and raised in san jose and I
[3:40:10] have lived two streets away
[3:40:12] from the property in question
[3:40:13] for 28 years. I am very
[3:40:15] concerned about the parking for
[3:40:17] the proposed condominium units
[3:40:18] >> many families bring with
[3:40:20] them at least two vehicles and
[3:40:22] sometimes many more. If the
[3:40:24] number of owned vehicles
[3:40:25] exceeds >> the number
[3:40:26] of parking spaces on the
[3:40:28] proposed property, cars will
[3:40:29] overflow into the street.
[3:40:31] currently there is a preschool,
[3:40:33] a middle school and a high
[3:40:35] school all located on carroll
[3:40:37] avenue between the subject
[3:40:38] property and dry creek road.
[3:40:40] all three of those schools are
[3:40:42] only in one quarter of a mile.
[3:40:45] there are hundreds and hundreds
[3:40:46] of students >> attending these
[3:40:47] schools. Last year alone
[3:40:49] several students were injured
[3:40:50] during pick up and drop off due
[3:40:52] to extreme traffic congestion.
[3:40:53] on the addition of more parked
[3:40:55] cars will only exacerbate this
[3:40:57] problem. As a homeowner I have
[3:40:59] witnessed >> many many more
[3:41:00] near-misses every day. The
[3:41:03] addition of added cars due to
[3:41:05] inadequate parking >> will pose
[3:41:06] significant risk. Renee I can
[3:41:13] hear me. Yes. These type of >>
[3:41:16] projects in the middle
[3:41:17] of existing neighborhoods
[3:41:18] should not be allowed. 12 units
[3:41:19] on residential parcel is a lot
[3:41:21] of additional people in cars.
[3:41:22] 14 waivers to get this through.
[3:41:24] that's a lot of waivers. The
[3:41:26] applicant said that real estate
[3:41:27] developers trying to solve the
[3:41:28] housing crisis. Unfortunately
[3:41:30] the housing crisis continues to
[3:41:31] get worse because of real
[3:41:33] estate developers by
[3:41:34] redeveloping single family
[3:41:36] homes into multi units or multi
[3:41:38] homes. It just makes the
[3:41:39] housing prices continue to
[3:41:40] soar. The city council should
[3:41:42] reject this plan and work
[3:41:44] toward trying to save san jose
[3:41:45] neighborhoods and
[3:41:46] overdevelopment. And see what
[3:41:48] we can do to fight back against
[3:41:50] developers at the state level
[3:41:52] which is basically how they're
[3:41:53] trying to push a lot of these
[3:41:55] projects through by using state
[3:41:58] laws and also by just
[3:42:00] dismantling local oversight.
[3:42:03] thank you. >> back to council.
[3:42:06] >> thank you, toni. Everyone
[3:42:09] who spoke in public comment
[3:42:11] only turned to my colleagues.
[3:42:12] we'll start with the vice mayor
[3:42:13] foley. Thank you, mayor and
[3:42:17] thank you for the presentation
[3:42:19] and for all the public
[3:42:20] comments. I know this
[3:42:22] intersection in this house
[3:42:24] really well although it's in
[3:42:25] districts six >> it's probably
[3:42:27] closer to my house than it is
[3:42:29] to yours. Council member. So I
[3:42:31] drive down that way all the
[3:42:34] time. I know curt and are very
[3:42:35] well kirchner >> is a vision
[3:42:37] zero corridor and does have
[3:42:40] some serious safety issues that
[3:42:43] intersection and in particular
[3:42:45] is a dangerous intersection. I
[3:42:47] agree with our the callers
[3:42:50] about that. In the report it
[3:42:52] mentions that speed bumps have
[3:42:54] been installed on codel but
[3:42:58] that isn't correct. I drove
[3:43:00] down cogdell just yesterday to
[3:43:02] confirm. As I said it's very
[3:43:04] close to my house. I use that
[3:43:06] way to get home all the time
[3:43:08] and did not. There were no
[3:43:10] speed bumps so I'm wondering
[3:43:11] what the status is of the speed
[3:43:13] bumps that might be implemented
[3:43:16] to be installed on that street.
[3:43:18] >> through the mayor we do have
[3:43:21] department of transportation
[3:43:23] staff perhaps they can address
[3:43:25] like what kind of traffic
[3:43:26] calming measures are being
[3:43:28] implemented or proposed in that
[3:43:30] area. Oh good because I have
[3:43:31] more questions for him. Thank
[3:43:33] you. >> you know I am the
[3:43:37] vision zero councilmember so
[3:43:41] and this corridor is of concern
[3:43:44] to me >>. Hi. Hello. >> council
[3:43:48] member for the future dottie
[3:43:49] division manager. Thank you for
[3:43:52] your question. I was not aware
[3:43:54] of the speed bumps but I'll
[3:43:55] have to talk to our vision zero
[3:43:57] team. They're the ones who
[3:43:57] handled those. I'm from a
[3:43:59] different division. I do
[3:44:01] development review as some
[3:44:03] of your council members know
[3:44:04] that I've worked with
[3:44:04] personally but we'll get back
[3:44:06] to you on the speed bumps
[3:44:09] question but definitely this
[3:44:10] intersection in the surrounding
[3:44:12] neighborhood and the high
[3:44:14] school there will high school
[3:44:16] has received attention from
[3:44:18] d.o.t. Traffic safety and our
[3:44:19] neighborhood traffic management
[3:44:21] team in the last few years and
[3:44:24] we'll receive more in the next
[3:44:26] upcoming year. We're currently
[3:44:28] waiting for as the school has
[3:44:30] started for traffic patterns to
[3:44:33] normalize before our
[3:44:36] neighborhood traffic management
[3:44:37] team will go out there, obtain
[3:44:40] specific counts to do a
[3:44:42] crossing guard study at the
[3:44:44] intersection of cogdell and
[3:44:46] kerner and our safety team that
[3:44:50] our school safety team will
[3:44:52] also in mid-october do go out
[3:44:56] there and obtain additional
[3:44:58] data to do a access and
[3:45:00] circulation study that they do
[3:45:04] at other high schools and
[3:45:05] elementary schools in san jose.
[3:45:08] so thank you for that. So
[3:45:10] you're still planning to do a
[3:45:12] traffic study of sorts to
[3:45:14] determine the flow of traffic
[3:45:16] down cogdell and kerner or
[3:45:18] particularly in relation to the
[3:45:20] schools. But that really is
[3:45:22] when traffic is most impacted
[3:45:24] on cogdell avenue because
[3:45:27] of willow glen middle high and
[3:45:29] the preschool that is right
[3:45:30] there. So you're planning to do
[3:45:32] that after school gets settled
[3:45:34] in september or october? Yes,
[3:45:37] right now I think we're talking
[3:45:39] about a mid-october timeline in
[3:45:41] terms of the actual school
[3:45:43] circulation and access study. I
[3:45:45] think that counts for the cross
[3:45:47] card study. Well, maybe perhaps
[3:45:50] a little bit earlier will be
[3:45:51] obtained but will confirm. >>
[3:45:53] okay. Thank you for that. The
[3:45:56] other thing I noticed as I was
[3:45:58] driving across the intersection
[3:46:00] is that the paint on for the
[3:46:04] intersection for the crosswalks
[3:46:06] is quite faded and could use a
[3:46:08] >> refresher. I know they're
[3:46:10] doing work on kerner. We've
[3:46:12] worked on it regularly and it's
[3:46:16] even just having the highlights
[3:46:19] of better painting would would
[3:46:21] help a little bit. So I'm happy
[3:46:25] to hear that. I'm I'm going to
[3:46:27] defer to councilmember mulcahy
[3:46:29] for for some of this but you
[3:46:32] should all know that this is a
[3:46:33] quasi hearing and we act as
[3:46:35] judge and jury over this
[3:46:37] hearing and we're only hearing
[3:46:40] the appeal to what the what
[3:46:44] planning department has already
[3:46:46] said. Isn't that correct? Yes.
[3:46:50] from an attorney or someone who
[3:46:52] whoever? Yes, that is correct.
[3:46:53] although the council can
[3:46:54] consider the project de novo in
[3:46:56] terms of the entirety of the
[3:46:57] project. Okay. So I'm not sure
[3:47:00] that this is on point within
[3:47:02] this quasi hearing or not but I
[3:47:04] have a question with regards to
[3:47:07] the construction hours as it
[3:47:09] relates to the middle and high
[3:47:11] school and traffic patterns. I
[3:47:14] would hope that when we move
[3:47:17] forward or is it possible to
[3:47:19] restrict construction outside
[3:47:22] the window of commute traffic
[3:47:26] drop off and pick up because
[3:47:28] it's they're working on cogdell
[3:47:30] or kerner >> it's going to be a
[3:47:32] mess and I share the concern
[3:47:34] of those neighbors who live
[3:47:35] there. I don't have to >> drop
[3:47:37] my daughter off anymore. She's
[3:47:38] 30 but I used to drop her off
[3:47:40] all the time to willow, glen
[3:47:42] and I'd figure out ways to
[3:47:43] avoid the traffic. It's only
[3:47:45] gotten worse so is there
[3:47:47] anything we can? Yes, we can.
[3:47:51] yeah, I think for a
[3:47:52] construction project typically
[3:47:54] a construction management plan
[3:47:55] could be required and the
[3:47:57] council has the discretion to
[3:47:59] provide parameters that can
[3:48:00] then be imposed by the public
[3:48:01] works team. >> okay so council
[3:48:03] member when that comes before
[3:48:06] you I'll let you advocate for
[3:48:09] the schools and parents who are
[3:48:11] traveling with that. I really
[3:48:13] appreciate it. I'm familiar
[3:48:15] with the project, I'm familiar
[3:48:16] with the the house as I said
[3:48:19] very, very much so I think it
[3:48:23] is higher density that in is
[3:48:25] what the what is there now and
[3:48:29] my major concern is traffic and
[3:48:32] pedestrian safety. So I'll
[3:48:34] leave it at that. Thank you.
[3:48:35] thanks, vice mayor. We turn to
[3:48:37] councilmember mckay. Thank you,
[3:48:41] mayor. Thank you, vice mayor
[3:48:44] foley for raising some of those
[3:48:46] issues. I was going to cover a
[3:48:49] couple of those things but I
[3:48:50] really just wanted to start
[3:48:53] when one of the callers came on
[3:48:55] I think it was christine, one
[3:48:57] of the appellant's she was
[3:48:59] right. There was a tragic
[3:49:01] collision or excuse me a tragic
[3:49:04] incident that occurred at this
[3:49:05] very intersection at about 1115
[3:49:08] earlier today which I found out
[3:49:11] about right before this
[3:49:13] meeting. And it was a road rage
[3:49:15] incident. And as vice mayor
[3:49:19] foley pointed out, this has
[3:49:21] been a challenging street
[3:49:23] overall. Kerner is not just
[3:49:26] at coddle but at hix and books
[3:49:28] and and meridian and I know
[3:49:31] going into council member
[3:49:32] foley, vice mayor foley's and
[3:49:36] councilmember duane's district
[3:49:37] that's a kerner situation and
[3:49:40] so we have a lot of work to do
[3:49:42] to keep that a safer street
[3:49:44] overall. So having said that, I
[3:49:49] just want to thank the
[3:49:50] applicant and and the
[3:49:51] appellants for speaking today
[3:49:54] and for following through on
[3:49:55] the appeals process and for
[3:49:57] sharing perspectives and
[3:49:58] reasoning. And again I know
[3:50:01] vice mayor covid this I want to
[3:50:02] emphasize that our role on this
[3:50:04] item is different than a
[3:50:05] typical council agenda. We hear
[3:50:08] this item as a quasi judicial
[3:50:10] role and what is considered an
[3:50:12] administrative appeal. So our
[3:50:14] role is not to decide whether
[3:50:16] we endorse the project at 1295
[3:50:18] kerner avenue or not. It's
[3:50:21] whether they have met the
[3:50:23] obligations of the appeal and
[3:50:25] really all of the project piece
[3:50:27] of this was determined by the
[3:50:29] director of planning at an
[3:50:30] earlier hearing. So with that
[3:50:33] as a backdrop based on
[3:50:34] my review of the information
[3:50:35] made available on the appeal
[3:50:37] and the process the applicable
[3:50:39] laws and procedures appear to
[3:50:41] have been followed now having
[3:50:44] said that, as the community is
[3:50:46] aware our office shares many
[3:50:48] of the concerns regarding
[3:50:50] traffic safety at kerner and
[3:50:51] connell and certainly
[3:50:53] reinforced by the incident this
[3:50:55] morning. We're actually
[3:50:56] concerned about council overall
[3:50:57] as I said before and will
[3:50:59] continue to work on those
[3:51:00] issues more broadly than just
[3:51:03] this intersection. But last
[3:51:05] year there was a collision
[3:51:07] incident at kerner and cottle
[3:51:09] and I think our dot
[3:51:11] representative talked about
[3:51:12] some of the things that
[3:51:14] resulted from that. We've added
[3:51:16] delineation and striping red
[3:51:18] curbing and daylighting at the
[3:51:20] intersection and for those
[3:51:23] of you not as familiar I know
[3:51:24] it was talked about there's a
[3:51:26] park, a community garden, a
[3:51:29] significant tennis facility
[3:51:31] there will a glen middle school
[3:51:34] and willow glen high school it
[3:51:35] is very active and I want to
[3:51:38] specifically recognize the
[3:51:39] willow glen neighborhood
[3:51:41] association and marian sedar
[3:51:42] quest who really helped
[3:51:44] spearhead some of the response
[3:51:46] to that incident last year. Now
[3:51:49] because of the type
[3:51:50] of application this project is
[3:51:51] under state law the city is
[3:51:53] limited in what it can require
[3:51:54] the applicant including traffic
[3:51:57] mitigation improvements. But I
[3:51:59] did want to mention that with
[3:52:01] planning staff and during the
[3:52:02] design process the developer
[3:52:04] did move the ingress egress
[3:52:07] farther. I think it is north on
[3:52:09] cottle in order to get farther
[3:52:13] away from the intersection due
[3:52:14] to obvious concerns about more
[3:52:17] crowding at the intersection >>
[3:52:19] and I know you know this
[3:52:22] doesn't appeal to everybody but
[3:52:23] the developer is building less
[3:52:25] units than they could have
[3:52:28] under state law. And you heard
[3:52:30] the parking ratio at three and
[3:52:33] a half and you know that is
[3:52:37] certainly an improvement to
[3:52:38] what this could have been. And
[3:52:40] as vice mayor foley pointed
[3:52:42] out, I live right up the
[3:52:43] street. I probably I think I
[3:52:45] was on kerner and connell
[3:52:47] intersection this morning on
[3:52:49] the way here. I'm there very
[3:52:51] frequently. I get it and I know
[3:52:53] that is a challenge. But
[3:52:56] there's also the property that
[3:52:58] is there has contributed to the
[3:53:00] challenge and yes there are
[3:53:03] some fantastic trees on the
[3:53:04] property but basically the
[3:53:06] property is the site is so that
[3:53:10] there's created a blind spot
[3:53:11] right on curtin and right on
[3:53:13] cottle because its foliage is
[3:53:16] right out on to onto the
[3:53:18] street. This project will
[3:53:20] provide a greater setback
[3:53:22] at the front edge to create a
[3:53:24] little bit less a lot less of a
[3:53:26] blind spot at that intersection
[3:53:28] both traveling southbound on
[3:53:30] cottle and westbound on and
[3:53:35] kirchner >> so I do we have
[3:53:37] john I know are you here for us
[3:53:39] for dougherty today sir? Yes,
[3:53:42] ma'am. Council okay so there's
[3:53:44] been talk about we can't
[3:53:47] mandate the developer do
[3:53:48] traffic study right? We've been
[3:53:50] doing some of our own because
[3:53:52] in the midst of this process
[3:53:53] we've had other incidents occur
[3:53:55] and of course today we want to
[3:53:58] I want to talk about what we
[3:53:59] can learn from the accident
[3:54:02] that occurred today or the
[3:54:03] incident that occurred today.
[3:54:05] but talk >> to me about what
[3:54:08] what I'd like to recommend is
[3:54:10] that we do a city initiated
[3:54:12] traffic study. It's beyond what
[3:54:14] we're doing for and maybe we
[3:54:16] could sort of piece it together
[3:54:18] with what we're doing for the
[3:54:19] crossing guard program to test
[3:54:22] whether that's going to be
[3:54:23] something we can do at this
[3:54:24] corner. But to make sure that
[3:54:27] we have a baseline of where we
[3:54:28] are pre-construction
[3:54:30] construction and then the the
[3:54:32] concept of a post construction
[3:54:35] but after the occupancy and
[3:54:38] let's say that we get to 75%
[3:54:41] occupancy see of the 12 units
[3:54:43] before we would initiate a
[3:54:45] second after construction
[3:54:48] traffic study with the notion
[3:54:50] that we would do it during
[3:54:52] school time just like we're
[3:54:53] talking about or it's a foley
[3:54:55] loaded schedule both schools
[3:54:57] are back. Is that something
[3:54:59] that we can accommodate and and
[3:55:01] you know put on the record now?
[3:55:03] >> yeah, definitely we can work
[3:55:06] with their staff to make sure
[3:55:08] that that can happen and we'll
[3:55:10] use this opportunity to obtain
[3:55:12] what we can call like existing
[3:55:14] operations and data and then
[3:55:16] post as you said seven 5%
[3:55:18] occupancy afterwards we can
[3:55:20] go back out there and look
[3:55:22] at the situation and obtained
[3:55:23] it again. >> so I want to make
[3:55:25] sure that we're on the same
[3:55:26] page in terms of this
[3:55:28] pre-construction study, I want
[3:55:30] to make sure that we have this
[3:55:32] one piece that's working
[3:55:33] through the system relative to
[3:55:35] testing whether it would rise
[3:55:37] to try a crossing guard. But
[3:55:40] then the other piece that I'm
[3:55:42] talking about is getting an
[3:55:43] overall baseline that might
[3:55:45] require some other data so on
[3:55:47] to make sure we're on the same
[3:55:48] page and we'll work together to
[3:55:49] make sure that scoping is right
[3:55:51] . That's right. Correct. Okay.
[3:55:53] >> and then I don't know if
[3:55:57] you've had any experience with
[3:56:00] you know, whether or not
[3:56:01] there's anything we can learn
[3:56:03] and we won't know until the
[3:56:04] coming days from the incident
[3:56:06] today and whether or not that
[3:56:09] was exacerbated by roadway
[3:56:12] conditions caused by roadway
[3:56:14] conditions. Was there any
[3:56:15] relationship between the
[3:56:17] intersection and what happened?
[3:56:19] I don't think anybody
[3:56:21] of nobody's been out of this
[3:56:22] building today to necessarily
[3:56:24] investigate that. But I want to
[3:56:25] make sure that there's a police
[3:56:27] department engagement and
[3:56:29] really understanding whether or
[3:56:30] not there's anything we can
[3:56:31] learn from today that can
[3:56:33] inform other measures that we
[3:56:35] may take at that intersection.
[3:56:37] >> yeah. D.o.t. Typically works
[3:56:40] with the police department to
[3:56:41] look at the police reports for
[3:56:42] various collisions to
[3:56:44] understand what were the causes
[3:56:47] of the collisions in the
[3:56:47] incidents. Yeah. So when that
[3:56:50] will be available we'll will
[3:56:51] definitely make sure that
[3:56:52] that's part of the study that
[3:56:54] we do out there. Okay. Thank
[3:56:56] you. And >> to the vice mayor's
[3:56:58] point, I'll just double down
[3:57:00] that if there's any you know,
[3:57:03] discoloration in the
[3:57:05] intersection as we sit here
[3:57:06] today, that's probably
[3:57:08] something we can get out and
[3:57:09] and take care of pretty
[3:57:11] quickly. Yes, we can work with
[3:57:14] our d.o.t. Pavement crews to
[3:57:16] refresh, as we say, the
[3:57:18] existing striping out there. I
[3:57:19] mean we've >> been we've done
[3:57:20] work out there most recently
[3:57:22] but a lot of times we put in
[3:57:23] the new work but we don't
[3:57:24] really check the old stuff and
[3:57:26] I think we should do that. So
[3:57:29] >> turning away from traffic I
[3:57:30] just want to go back to trees.
[3:57:33] this has been a very hot topic
[3:57:34] lately here at council. Yes
[3:57:38] they are removing 24 trees but
[3:57:41] as I understand it and minera
[3:57:42] maybe you can check my math on
[3:57:44] this the development will plant
[3:57:48] 81 new trees on this site which
[3:57:52] is more than the 74 that would
[3:57:54] be required at the site minera
[3:57:55] can you confirm I have that
[3:57:57] number right? Yes, that is
[3:57:58] correct. So >> given the jury a
[3:58:01] grand jury report we heard
[3:58:03] at council last week, we know
[3:58:04] how important trees are. I
[3:58:06] think this will be helpful for
[3:58:08] our tree canopy and the
[3:58:09] well-being of our city. The one
[3:58:11] thing I want to make sure we do
[3:58:13] and I'm know I'm talking to the
[3:58:16] chiefs of the department here
[3:58:19] we have to make sure that every
[3:58:21] one of those trees gets in the
[3:58:22] ground, especially those street
[3:58:25] trees, those ones that you know
[3:58:28] matter the most to the people
[3:58:29] that are expecting that we're
[3:58:31] going to follow through when we
[3:58:33] say we're going to expect trees
[3:58:34] that they actually get planted.
[3:58:36] so we want to make sure that
[3:58:37] we're you know, on that before
[3:58:39] they get their final. So I
[3:58:43] would just say as a council
[3:58:44] office and as your council
[3:58:46] member will continue to work
[3:58:48] with our residents and our
[3:58:50] transportation partners as well
[3:58:52] as us the san jose unified
[3:58:54] school district leadership whom
[3:58:56] we've spoken to before about
[3:58:58] modifying school times which is
[3:59:00] a state requirement and they
[3:59:02] can't do that. That idea
[3:59:03] of breaking up may be a little
[3:59:05] bit different middle school
[3:59:06] high school even five minutes
[3:59:08] we've noted would make a huge
[3:59:10] difference. State law >> will
[3:59:12] not allow them to do that but
[3:59:14] we'll continue to find ways to
[3:59:16] keep our kids safe and working
[3:59:18] with san jose unified on that.
[3:59:20] >> I just want to say that
[3:59:23] traffic safety I'm sort
[3:59:25] of looking down the days here
[3:59:26] it's probably top three for
[3:59:28] every one of us as we hear from
[3:59:29] our community and will continue
[3:59:31] to be a point of interest. So
[3:59:33] with that I do want to move
[3:59:35] staff's recommendation to deny
[3:59:37] the site development permit and
[3:59:40] environmental appeals and to
[3:59:42] approve this project second all
[3:59:47] right, thanks council
[3:59:48] appreciate >> all your good
[3:59:49] questions and comments on the
[3:59:52] trees. It may be a pet peeve
[3:59:53] but with a strong preference
[3:59:54] for native trees that are going
[3:59:56] to actually provide real
[3:59:57] longevity and canopy cover when
[3:59:59] they get built out and what
[4:00:00] little I don't know how you do
[4:00:02] 60 some we don't want little
[4:00:04] ornamental things I think some
[4:00:05] real real trees would be great.
[4:00:08] okay what else anything else
[4:00:09] from colleagues I'm not seeing
[4:00:12] anything. So toni, we need to
[4:00:14] vote on this item motion from
[4:00:16] councilor mulcahy
[4:00:34] . Motion passes >> unanimously.
[4:00:39] okay. Thank you, toni. All
[4:00:41] right. Thank you to staff we
[4:00:43] are on to item 10.3. This is
[4:00:47] the general plan four year
[4:00:50] review policy framework going
[4:00:53] to have a staff presentation
[4:00:55] then we'll move to public
[4:00:56] comment and then we'll come
[4:00:57] back to the council for
[4:00:59] discussion and a motion I do
[4:01:03] want to just note for the
[4:01:03] public and we have a lot
[4:01:05] of folks here who want to speak
[4:01:06] as I mentioned before, we
[4:01:09] strongly encourage folks to not
[4:01:12] cheer and boos so that we can
[4:01:14] hear people can have their time
[4:01:15] at the mic and we can be
[4:01:16] efficient so we're not here
[4:01:17] until midnight. I also want to
[4:01:19] 
[4:01:20] I see some very large signs and
[4:01:24] I support your signs as an
[4:01:25] expression of free speech.
[4:01:26] however we ask you to keep them
[4:01:29] down kind of in front of you
[4:01:30] and do not block the person
[4:01:32] behind you. Please be
[4:01:33] respectful to your neighbors.
[4:01:36] not everyone in the chamber
[4:01:37] here agrees on this issue. I
[4:01:38] think we're going to hear from
[4:01:39] a wide range of perspectives.
[4:01:43] one other note and toni, we'll
[4:01:44] have more when we go to public
[4:01:45] comment. Council members may
[4:01:47] step back into the green room
[4:01:48] to use the restroom or grab a
[4:01:50] quick bite to eat. It's already
[4:01:51] been a long day. We started
[4:01:53] with closed session at 9:30
[4:01:54] a.m. Today. I want you to know
[4:01:56] that in the back we have the
[4:01:58] full meeting on screens and
[4:01:59] full audio so people are
[4:02:01] hearing every bit of the
[4:02:02] presentation, every public
[4:02:03] comment. It is not a way for
[4:02:05] council members to duck out on
[4:02:08] you. I just want you to be to
[4:02:09] rest assured. Okay chris, I'm
[4:02:12] going to turn to you to begin
[4:02:13] the staff presentation and then
[4:02:15] we'll go to public comment.
[4:02:19] thank you, mayor chris burton,
[4:02:22] director of planning building
[4:02:24] code enforcement. I'm joined
[4:02:25] here today by mira sand here,
[4:02:28] deputy director of planning and
[4:02:30] then ruth cueto and jared
[4:02:32] ferguson who are our principal
[4:02:34] planners within our citywide
[4:02:36] planning team and have really
[4:02:38] been the leads on this effort.
[4:02:41] so today we're here to present
[4:02:44] our recommended policy
[4:02:45] framework for our four year
[4:02:46] review of the general plan
[4:02:49] before we get into the
[4:02:50] specifics, I just wanted to
[4:02:51] talk about where we are in the
[4:02:53] process and what it is that
[4:02:54] we're asking the city council
[4:02:55] to do today. Today's action,
[4:02:58] just to be clear does not amend
[4:03:00] our general plan. It doesn't
[4:03:01] change the zoning
[4:03:03] of residential properties and
[4:03:04] it would not approve
[4:03:05] development projects or in
[4:03:07] title any particular parcel.
[4:03:09] what we're asking the city
[4:03:10] council to do today is to
[4:03:12] provide us with direction on
[4:03:13] the policies staff should
[4:03:14] develop and analyze and then
[4:03:17] bring back for formal
[4:03:18] consideration the proposed
[4:03:21] general plan amendments, zoning
[4:03:22] changes and development
[4:03:24] standards and then all the
[4:03:25] supporting analysis for the
[4:03:27] environmental work would then
[4:03:28] return to the planning
[4:03:29] commission and the city council
[4:03:31] for public hearings in december
[4:03:32] of 27 and they want to
[4:03:34] highlight that as we continue.
[4:03:36] I want to highlight that
[4:03:37] because we continue to receive
[4:03:39] as you can see considerable
[4:03:40] additional input from residents
[4:03:42] particularly about small
[4:03:44] multifamily or what we call our
[4:03:46] missing middle portion of this
[4:03:47] work a a lot of that feedback
[4:03:50] that we've received has
[4:03:51] centered around the scale
[4:03:53] of future development and its
[4:03:54] direct impacts on immediate
[4:03:57] neighbors and then the
[4:03:58] cumulative effect of change
[4:04:00] within our residential single
[4:04:01] family neighborhoods. And so
[4:04:03] you know I just want to be
[4:04:03] clear that today is not the end
[4:04:04] of that conversation. You know,
[4:04:07] it's very much that we're
[4:04:10] asking council to determine
[4:04:11] what staff should go study and
[4:04:13] what issues need to be
[4:04:14] addressed before a final
[4:04:15] decision is made. Okay. So why
[4:04:18] now? So this work is part of a
[4:04:21] longer housing planning process
[4:04:23] that the city undertakes. It
[4:04:25] began with the adoption of the
[4:04:27] sixth cycle of a housing
[4:04:29] element and then the
[4:04:30] certification by the state's
[4:04:32] department of housing and
[4:04:33] community development that
[4:04:35] occurred back in early 2023
[4:04:38] city council saw this in 2022
[4:04:41] when we often talk about the
[4:04:42] housing element a lot of people
[4:04:44] think about the regional
[4:04:45] housing needs allocation number
[4:04:47] that's the 62,000 residential
[4:04:49] unit number that you often hear
[4:04:51] spoken about. But the document
[4:04:53] itself also includes over 90
[4:04:56] policies that the city
[4:04:57] committed to undertake to
[4:04:59] promote the availability and
[4:05:00] the diversity of housing
[4:05:02] throughout san jose. Our most
[4:05:04] recent housing element included
[4:05:06] commitments to create the small
[4:05:08] multifamily housing
[4:05:09] opportunities as well as to
[4:05:11] update our urban village
[4:05:12] strategy which we'll touch on
[4:05:14] as well. We'll as I said refer
[4:05:17] to it multiple times throughout
[4:05:19] this presentation. They're the
[4:05:22] agency with the state that's
[4:05:23] responsible for the
[4:05:24] certification but also the
[4:05:25] monitoring of the
[4:05:27] municipalities housing elements
[4:05:30] and they've made it very clear
[4:05:31] that they'll continue to
[4:05:32] monitor the city's
[4:05:33] implementation of those
[4:05:34] commitments throughout this
[4:05:35] period. At the same time we're
[4:05:37] looking to prepare for our next
[4:05:39] housing element. That cycle
[4:05:40] will run from 2031 to 2039 and
[4:05:45] that's due to the state well it
[4:05:46] needs to be certified by the
[4:05:48] state prior to january 31st
[4:05:50] of 2031. You know big picture
[4:05:53] land use planning like this and
[4:05:56] the type of decisions that are
[4:05:57] needed to support a housing
[4:05:59] element at this scale can't
[4:06:01] just be done the last minute.
[4:06:03] really what we're looking at is
[4:06:04] major general plan amendments,
[4:06:05] zoning changes, environmental
[4:06:07] review as well as
[4:06:08] infrastructure planning and all
[4:06:10] of the community engagement
[4:06:11] that needs to happen
[4:06:12] sequentially. And so that's why
[4:06:14] we're undertaking this review
[4:06:15] right now at the midpoint
[4:06:17] between those two housing
[4:06:18] elements. So we're just trying
[4:06:21] to give you a sense of the
[4:06:22] overall timeline and put
[4:06:24] today's decision in perspective
[4:06:26] of the current housing element.
[4:06:28] establish those commitments
[4:06:29] that I spoke to council that
[4:06:31] approved the scope of the full
[4:06:33] year review in june of 2025. It
[4:06:36] was a reduced scope and
[4:06:38] direction and also included
[4:06:40] using the planning commission
[4:06:42] as the task force for this
[4:06:43] particular four year review
[4:06:45] which is different from the two
[4:06:46] prior iterations that we had
[4:06:48] completed and then we proceeded
[4:06:50] to have them meet in that
[4:06:51] compressed timeline between
[4:06:54] october of 2025 and june
[4:06:55] of 2026. So today is council is
[4:06:59] considering that policy
[4:07:00] framework as you then provide
[4:07:02] us direction we'll begin the
[4:07:04] environmental review process,
[4:07:06] prepare all of the
[4:07:07] documentation and zoning
[4:07:08] amendments, the general plan
[4:07:09] amendments and then develop the
[4:07:11] actual program standards while
[4:07:14] continuing to engage with the
[4:07:16] public through the fall of 2027
[4:07:18] we anticipate to be back in
[4:07:20] full in front of council
[4:07:21] probably by december of 2027
[4:07:24] with the actual decisions the
[4:07:26] proposed amendments I'm sorry.
[4:07:29] yes. By december 27th and that
[4:07:31] work will help us establish the
[4:07:33] land use foundation for that
[4:07:34] next housing element. And so
[4:07:36] the reason that we're targeting
[4:07:38] 2027 is our last housing
[4:07:39] element took us approximately
[4:07:41] two and a half years to
[4:07:42] complete and then we have an
[4:07:44] additional sort of work with
[4:07:45] hpd to actually get that done
[4:07:48] and over the goal line before
[4:07:49] january of 31. So this process
[4:07:52] very much has a beginning, very
[4:07:53] much has a middle and an ending
[4:07:55] and right now we're kind of in
[4:07:56] that middle phase. So just to
[4:08:00] review the scope that council
[4:08:01] gave us and we stuck fairly
[4:08:04] well within that scope it did
[4:08:06] expand slightly but first we
[4:08:08] wanted to look at increasing
[4:08:09] the residential capacity so the
[4:08:11] current general plan plan for
[4:08:12] about 120,000 residential units
[4:08:15] the 62,000 units in the current
[4:08:17] housing element pretty much
[4:08:18] got us there on the total
[4:08:19] capacity. So that we know by
[4:08:21] 2031 we're going to have to
[4:08:23] identify additional units
[4:08:25] throughout the city to meet the
[4:08:26] state's goals. Secondly, the
[4:08:29] scope was intended to help us
[4:08:30] maintain an appropriate balance
[4:08:32] between the number of jobs in
[4:08:33] the city as well as the
[4:08:34] employed residents. That's a
[4:08:36] core element of our general
[4:08:38] plan and then third and fourth
[4:08:41] with the two commitments that
[4:08:43] we made in the prior housing
[4:08:44] element. So firstly that small
[4:08:46] multifamily housing program and
[4:08:48] then lastly updating our urban
[4:08:50] village strategy which was a
[4:08:51] commitment under program 40 and
[4:08:55] the housing element. And so
[4:08:56] each of these elements really
[4:08:58] addressed a different part
[4:08:59] of san jose's long term growth
[4:09:00] strategy and the common
[4:09:02] question throughout is how the
[4:09:04] city can accommodate its
[4:09:05] housing obligations while
[4:09:06] continuing to plan for the
[4:09:08] infrastructure, employment
[4:09:10] services and complete
[4:09:12] neighborhoods that we aspire
[4:09:14] to. So the recommendations were
[4:09:18] developed through that
[4:09:19] taskforce process. We included
[4:09:21] the community and stakeholder
[4:09:22] outreach. Obviously staff is
[4:09:24] heavily involved with our
[4:09:25] analysis and then that's
[4:09:27] brought forward through the
[4:09:28] planning commission for their
[4:09:29] consideration. It's really the
[4:09:31] planning commission's
[4:09:32] recommendation based on the
[4:09:33] taskforce recommendation that
[4:09:35] we're presenting today.
[4:09:37] obviously the planning
[4:09:38] commission wasn't asked about
[4:09:39] final ordinance language. We
[4:09:41] didn't get into details on many
[4:09:43] of these programs. It was
[4:09:44] really recommending the
[4:09:45] structure of the framework that
[4:09:47] staff can then use to begin
[4:09:49] preparing all of the language
[4:09:50] that will come back later that
[4:09:53] the same is true for council's
[4:09:54] action today and that framework
[4:09:55] really establish all of the
[4:09:57] issues that we need to analyze.
[4:10:00] it certainly doesn't settle
[4:10:01] every one of the design
[4:10:02] standards or the geographic
[4:10:04] considerations or even the
[4:10:05] development requirements that
[4:10:07] we expect to come from this
[4:10:08] work. Those details will, you
[4:10:10] know, really determine both the
[4:10:12] effects of the program on local
[4:10:13] neighborhoods as well as
[4:10:15] whether it's likely to abuse
[4:10:16] the housing that we are trying
[4:10:18] to achieve and that work all
[4:10:20] really still lies ahead. Okay.
[4:10:23] so I did want to touch very
[4:10:24] briefly on kind of where the
[4:10:26] planning commission landed on
[4:10:27] their recommendations. So the
[4:10:29] planning commission recommended
[4:10:30] moving forward with staff
[4:10:32] changes to the several general
[4:10:34] plan density ranges the land
[4:10:36] use changes along the alameda
[4:10:38] and on certain mixed use
[4:10:40] commercial sites and sb 1333
[4:10:43] sites that we identified. They
[4:10:47] forwarded the recommendation
[4:10:48] of a framework for public
[4:10:49] public quayside public lands
[4:10:52] throughout the city as well as
[4:10:54] the update to the urban village
[4:10:56] strategy and the small
[4:10:57] multifamily program. They also
[4:10:59] agreed with staff's
[4:11:01] recommendation to maintain the
[4:11:02] current jobs to employed
[4:11:03] residents ratio target of 1.1.
[4:11:08] so that's 1.1 jobs for every
[4:11:11] employed resident. The
[4:11:12] commission voted separately.
[4:11:14] next slide on an individual
[4:11:18] items sorry on that previous
[4:11:21] one. And when the commission
[4:11:23] voted they actually took all
[4:11:24] of the items individually and
[4:11:26] voted on each one. So just
[4:11:28] wanted to note that on the
[4:11:30] small multifamily program the
[4:11:32] commission voted 9 to 2
[4:11:34] recommend approval of that.
[4:11:36] they did not they were not able
[4:11:39] to get to a majority
[4:11:40] recommendation on the proposed
[4:11:42] winchester boulevard land use
[4:11:43] changes. Therefore council has
[4:11:46] the staff recommendation that
[4:11:48] was presented to the task force
[4:11:50] and the planning commission and
[4:11:52] then obviously there are
[4:11:53] alternatives described in the
[4:11:55] memorandum from the
[4:11:56] councilmembers. Okay. So I
[4:11:58] wanted to spend the majority
[4:12:00] of our time just discussing the
[4:12:01] small multifamily housing
[4:12:03] program because obviously this
[4:12:06] is the portion of the work
[4:12:07] that's really garnered the
[4:12:09] greatest public interest at its
[4:12:13] most basic version missing
[4:12:14] middle housing refers to
[4:12:16] housing forms somewhere between
[4:12:18] a detached single family home
[4:12:20] and a larger apartment building
[4:12:22] and that may include, you know,
[4:12:24] different types of housing such
[4:12:25] as duplexes fourplex townhomes
[4:12:28] or even sort of small apartment
[4:12:30] buildings on larger lots. But
[4:12:33] it's really designed at a
[4:12:34] neighborhood scale, right? It's
[4:12:36] intended to integrate with
[4:12:37] existing neighborhoods. The
[4:12:39] policy objective is to really
[4:12:41] create more housing choices in
[4:12:43] parts of the city where those
[4:12:44] choices are limited somewhat
[4:12:45] today. But obviously how we
[4:12:47] create these standards has a
[4:12:49] significant impact on the
[4:12:50] outcomes for individual
[4:12:52] properties and then the
[4:12:53] surrounding neighborhoods in
[4:12:54] those areas. The final number
[4:12:56] of units on an individual
[4:12:58] property can certainly be
[4:12:59] affected by a number of things
[4:13:01] that include parcel size, you
[4:13:03] know adu requirements and laws,
[4:13:05] density bonus law, how
[4:13:07] properties are subdivided and
[4:13:09] then there are other state
[4:13:10] requirements that we have as a
[4:13:11] consideration. I do want to
[4:13:13] assure the council that you
[4:13:14] know we've tried to be really
[4:13:15] candid about that throughout
[4:13:17] our outreach with the public
[4:13:18] and throughout the task force
[4:13:19] process and as we develop these
[4:13:21] programs. So again, just a note
[4:13:25] and you know I'm sure we'll
[4:13:27] touch on this more as we get
[4:13:28] into questions. Our small
[4:13:30] multifamily housing program is
[4:13:32] not in new obligation. You
[4:13:34] know, this is not the first
[4:13:35] time we introduced it through
[4:13:36] this process. P35 is the
[4:13:38] program in our housing element
[4:13:41] and I just wanted to sort
[4:13:42] of bring this up as a reference
[4:13:43] not only did we include it in
[4:13:45] housing element but it was also
[4:13:48] referenced heavily in the
[4:13:50] certification letter that we
[4:13:51] received from hpd that you
[4:13:54] know, really noted the creation
[4:13:55] of this program as an important
[4:13:56] move for san jose and its
[4:13:58] housing element and the
[4:14:01] included program contemplated
[4:14:04] as written at least four and up
[4:14:06] to ten units in locations
[4:14:08] throughout the city. Those
[4:14:10] commitments don't prescribe
[4:14:11] every detail in the final
[4:14:12] ordinance. They do mean that as
[4:14:14] a city we must develop a
[4:14:15] program that is legally
[4:14:17] adequate and reasonably capable
[4:14:19] of being used to meet those
[4:14:21] obligations and commitments in
[4:14:22] the housing element a program
[4:14:24] that purely exists on paper and
[4:14:26] produces no meaningful new
[4:14:28] housing would not satisfy the
[4:14:32] housing element for the
[4:14:32] purposes of cdw's review and
[4:14:35] that does represent a
[4:14:36] compliance risk which we
[4:14:38] believe is significant in
[4:14:39] recent conversations that we've
[4:14:41] had with the state. Failure to
[4:14:44] implement our commitments in
[4:14:45] the certified housing element
[4:14:46] could expose the city to
[4:14:48] financial penalties and
[4:14:50] potential impacts on our
[4:14:51] ability to approve certain
[4:14:52] permits and ultimately the
[4:14:54] possibility of decertifying our
[4:14:56] housing element and the
[4:14:57] reopening of the city to build
[4:14:59] as remedy applications. You
[4:15:02] know that's not something that
[4:15:03] oecd takes lightly. It's also
[4:15:05] not something that would be
[4:15:06] immediate but it is something
[4:15:09] that we've seen as you know, a
[4:15:10] tool that they've used with
[4:15:12] other communities throughout
[4:15:13] california. I just want to be
[4:15:16] clear the council does have
[4:15:17] discretion in you know,
[4:15:19] designing this program but that
[4:15:21] discretion needs to be in the
[4:15:22] context of clear understanding
[4:15:23] that not all the alternatives
[4:15:25] carry equal compliance risk.
[4:15:28] okay. The other thing that I
[4:15:29] think is really important that
[4:15:30] we've been trying to highlight
[4:15:32] through this process is to
[4:15:33] recognize the existing
[4:15:35] condition that we face today
[4:15:37] which is not simply one home on
[4:15:39] every residential parcel over
[4:15:42] the past seven years we've seen
[4:15:43] over 450 bills passed by the
[4:15:45] state that impact our ability
[4:15:47] and the way we approve housing.
[4:15:50] our workers transition
[4:15:52] significantly in that period
[4:15:55] and the state has really
[4:15:55] changed what can occur
[4:15:57] throughout the city. So some
[4:15:58] of the most important bills
[4:16:00] that we deal with in single
[4:16:01] family neighborhoods include
[4:16:03] senate bill nine which allows
[4:16:04] for a qualifying residential
[4:16:06] parcel to accommodate either a
[4:16:08] duplex can be subdivided into
[4:16:10] two parcels or a combination
[4:16:13] that could result in as many as
[4:16:14] four primary units on the
[4:16:16] existing single family lot.
[4:16:18] senate bill 1123 creates
[4:16:21] additional subdivision
[4:16:22] opportunities on either a
[4:16:23] vacant parcel or that's been
[4:16:25] extended to include where you
[4:16:26] can subdivide off the existing
[4:16:28] home and the remainder of the
[4:16:30] lot could accommodate up to ten
[4:16:32] parcels. And then we also have
[4:16:35] adu laws that allow allow
[4:16:37] additional units beyond the
[4:16:38] sort of base density and state
[4:16:40] density bonus laws which can
[4:16:42] increase allowable density and
[4:16:43] provide as we saw in the
[4:16:45] previous project a series
[4:16:46] of waivers from some of our
[4:16:48] local development standards and
[4:16:51] those laws apply whether or not
[4:16:52] san jose creates this program.
[4:16:55] the question is therefore
[4:16:56] really not whether resident
[4:16:59] residential neighborhoods will
[4:17:01] ever change. Some changes
[4:17:03] already permitted by and
[4:17:04] occurring under those existing
[4:17:06] state laws. You know, I think
[4:17:08] what we're trying to do with
[4:17:10] our approach is create a local
[4:17:12] pathway that produces housing
[4:17:14] in a more coordinate gated and
[4:17:16] predictable physical form with
[4:17:19] objective standards that
[4:17:20] address things like height
[4:17:21] setbacks, lock coverage, open
[4:17:24] space privacy access, all
[4:17:26] of those other sort
[4:17:27] of neighborhood conditions that
[4:17:28] can remain within our control
[4:17:30] as we design our own program
[4:17:32] versus being subject to those
[4:17:34] state laws. You know choosing
[4:17:36] not to develop a local program
[4:17:38] doesn't necessarily preserve
[4:17:39] the status quo. I think that's
[4:17:40] the point we're ultimately
[4:17:41] trying to make and we are
[4:17:43] certainly seeing a number
[4:17:44] of these outcomes where
[4:17:45] applicants are coming in and
[4:17:47] layering various state laws in
[4:17:49] different ways to maximize
[4:17:51] their opportunity. So it's
[4:17:54] going to touch a little bit on
[4:17:55] density. I apologize that this
[4:17:57] slide the text is a little
[4:17:58] small. We can certainly dive
[4:18:01] into the details but our
[4:18:02] initial recommendation was to
[4:18:04] evaluate an increase across the
[4:18:06] residential neighborhood
[4:18:07] designation to go from eight
[4:18:10] units per acre to 32 dwelling
[4:18:12] units per acre. So a typical
[4:18:15] residential parcel throughout
[4:18:16] san jose is somewhere between 5
[4:18:20] and 6000ft². So if you see on
[4:18:22] this chart between 3000 and
[4:18:24] 8000ft² you've got 84% of all
[4:18:27] single family residential
[4:18:28] parcels throughout the city. So
[4:18:31] really what we're aiming for is
[4:18:32] to raise that that base density
[4:18:36] to allow for units on the vast
[4:18:38] majority of parcels. I do want
[4:18:40] to acknowledge as you'll see
[4:18:41] at the bottom of that chart
[4:18:42] that state adu requirements can
[4:18:44] affect the potential total
[4:18:45] number of units and we also
[4:18:47] deal with state density bonus
[4:18:49] on certain lots that requires
[4:18:51] more units to start with but
[4:18:53] that can affect the number
[4:18:55] further for qualifying
[4:18:56] projects. But ultimately when
[4:18:58] you think about the vast
[4:19:00] majority of parcels throughout
[4:19:01] the city size constraints for
[4:19:04] primary units you know will
[4:19:07] ultimately limit how how they
[4:19:08] will build out and what we will
[4:19:10] ultimately see in these areas
[4:19:13] beyond that number, obviously
[4:19:15] there's a lot of work to be
[4:19:16] done around development
[4:19:17] standards so how can people
[4:19:18] actually build and I think this
[4:19:20] is the crux of the discussion
[4:19:22] is these are the things that we
[4:19:23] are able to implement as a city
[4:19:25] under our program and have a
[4:19:27] little bit more control. You
[4:19:28] know density is only the one
[4:19:29] part of the program. It's the
[4:19:31] standards that will largely
[4:19:33] determine what housing looks
[4:19:34] like and feels like on the
[4:19:35] ground. The current framework
[4:19:38] would retain the existing
[4:19:40] height limit in residential
[4:19:41] neighborhood which is 35ft.
[4:19:43] right now that provision is for
[4:19:45] two and a half stories. We
[4:19:46] would change that to three
[4:19:48] stories. Two and a half means a
[4:19:49] split level home can
[4:19:51] essentially said the same
[4:19:52] height. This allows you to use
[4:19:55] that height more effectively to
[4:19:56] use three stories and I have
[4:19:58] some examples I'll show in a
[4:20:00] moment just what that means. We
[4:20:02] also develop objective
[4:20:03] standards for setbacks floor
[4:20:05] area ratio, things like lock
[4:20:07] coverage, parcel size whether
[4:20:09] or not we allow a lot mergers
[4:20:11] you know some of the provisions
[4:20:12] around historic properties and
[4:20:14] other physical design
[4:20:15] considerations and obviously
[4:20:17] we've heard a lot about parking
[4:20:19] as a concern as well from
[4:20:22] staff's perspective. We began
[4:20:24] with the city's current
[4:20:25] citywide policy which is we
[4:20:26] currently do not have a minimum
[4:20:28] parking requirement but you
[4:20:30] know, hearing not just from the
[4:20:32] task force but from community
[4:20:34] members and certainly some
[4:20:36] of the memos that we've seen
[4:20:37] from the city council, you
[4:20:39] know, that is one of the things
[4:20:40] that we want to bring into that
[4:20:41] consideration. You know, there
[4:20:44] are certain state laws that
[4:20:45] impact our ability to implement
[4:20:47] parking minimums across the
[4:20:49] city and there's portions
[4:20:51] of the city where because
[4:20:52] of its proximity to transit
[4:20:53] access we will not be able to
[4:20:55] institute new parking minimums.
[4:20:57] but there are parts of the city
[4:20:58] that we can consider that. I
[4:21:00] think just overall in creating
[4:21:02] these programs we just need to
[4:21:03] be mindful of balancing the
[4:21:05] objectives to preserve
[4:21:07] community character which is
[4:21:08] really how we're approaching
[4:21:09] this against standards that are
[4:21:11] so restrictive that parcels
[4:21:13] can't be built at all because
[4:21:14] we know will run afoul of hpd
[4:21:16] on that the work between now
[4:21:19] and 2027 is really finding that
[4:21:20] balance and a program that the
[4:21:23] market could actually use you
[4:21:25] know, with the strongest
[4:21:26] locally enforceable standards
[4:21:28] that we can reasonably
[4:21:28] establish. We also need to look
[4:21:31] sort of beyond the individual
[4:21:33] parcel, you know, and think
[4:21:35] about some of the bigger
[4:21:36] issues. And again I think this
[4:21:37] relates to the prior
[4:21:38] conversation. So as we see
[4:21:40] residential capacity increase
[4:21:41] throughout the city, we need to
[4:21:43] consider cumulative effects on
[4:21:45] transportation, on utilities,
[4:21:47] parks, schools, emergency
[4:21:49] response as well as other
[4:21:51] infrastructure. And again
[4:21:52] that's much of the work that
[4:21:53] occurs between now and the end
[4:21:55] of 2027 and we also want to
[4:21:58] make sure that we're evaluating
[4:22:00] whether other general plan
[4:22:02] policies ensure that new
[4:22:04] development can reasonably
[4:22:05] contribute to the services and
[4:22:06] infrastructure that the
[4:22:08] residents will need. Okay. So I
[4:22:12] just wanted to highlight just a
[4:22:13] couple of examples. Now these
[4:22:14] are examples in san jose.
[4:22:16] they're not currently in
[4:22:17] residential neighborhood
[4:22:18] because this is the change
[4:22:19] we're proposing but there are
[4:22:21] adjacent to existing single
[4:22:23] family neighborhoods so this
[4:22:25] property is 39 lester avenue.
[4:22:27] this is a 40 500 square foot
[4:22:29] parcel. There's three units
[4:22:31] they have four parking spaces.
[4:22:33] the height of this building is
[4:22:34] actually just above right? So
[4:22:36] you know, this is again not in
[4:22:38] a residential neighborhood so
[4:22:40] you know, standards wouldn't
[4:22:41] allow this. It would be
[4:22:42] slightly lower. But so the
[4:22:44] density of what this project is
[4:22:46] is about 30 units to the acre
[4:22:48] right now. So it just gives you
[4:22:49] a sense of the scale of that
[4:22:51] type of development. The next
[4:22:53] example this is on park avenue
[4:22:56] at 1945 park. Again we sort
[4:22:58] of took a slightly zoomed out
[4:22:59] version and you can kind of see
[4:23:01] how the lot relates to the
[4:23:02] surrounding area. This is a
[4:23:05] larger lot. This is almost an
[4:23:06] 8000 foot lot and again, you
[4:23:09] know the market's coming in to
[4:23:10] really dictate how they
[4:23:12] approach development on these
[4:23:13] in this instance it's a three
[4:23:15] unit project so this is you
[4:23:17] know, lower this is 17 units to
[4:23:19] the acre but this is what the
[4:23:21] developer at the time felt like
[4:23:23] was applicable. I think just
[4:23:25] the important thing as we talk
[4:23:26] about those standards the
[4:23:27] difference between two and a
[4:23:28] half stories and three stories
[4:23:30] is the three stories allow that
[4:23:32] parking to be on the ground
[4:23:33] floor, right? And then you get
[4:23:35] two livable stories above it.
[4:23:37] and so that's how it's being
[4:23:38] accommodated in that
[4:23:39] configuration. Those are
[4:23:40] separate so I just wanted to
[4:23:44] finish on some next steps and
[4:23:46] our timeline I think for the
[4:23:50] next I know you could if
[4:23:52] council provides direction
[4:23:53] today staff will prepare draft
[4:23:55] general plan amendments, zoning
[4:23:58] ordinance changes objective
[4:23:59] development standards and
[4:24:01] environmental analysis will
[4:24:03] continue to do engagement with
[4:24:04] the community with residents as
[4:24:06] well as property owners,
[4:24:08] housing advocates, developers,
[4:24:09] neighborhood organizations and
[4:24:11] other affected stakeholders.
[4:24:13] when this work returns in 2027,
[4:24:15] council will have the actual
[4:24:17] proposed policy language and we
[4:24:19] will be looking for
[4:24:20] opportunities to engage with
[4:24:21] committee and council in
[4:24:23] advance of that we'll also have
[4:24:25] the environmental analysis and
[4:24:27] the results of additional
[4:24:28] outreach and a clearer
[4:24:29] understanding of the kind
[4:24:31] of legal, physical and economic
[4:24:33] implications of the
[4:24:34] alternatives. And really that's
[4:24:35] the point when council will
[4:24:37] decide what to adopt. The
[4:24:39] additional constraint I do just
[4:24:41] want to touch on and then I'm
[4:24:42] going to talk a little bit
[4:24:43] about some of the memos that
[4:24:45] council put forward is
[4:24:47] obviously the other
[4:24:49] consideration we have as we
[4:24:51] go into the next phase
[4:24:53] of development is staff
[4:24:54] capacity. You know we have this
[4:24:56] tight time frame and we're
[4:24:58] working towards that formal
[4:25:00] consideration in december of 27
[4:25:02] and the work you know has to
[4:25:04] position the city to begin
[4:25:05] preparing that next housing
[4:25:07] element as we've previously
[4:25:09] discussed, our citywide
[4:25:11] planning capacity is limited.
[4:25:12] we'll be back in front
[4:25:13] of council on october 6th so a
[4:25:17] little over a month to review
[4:25:20] the work plan and talk about
[4:25:21] priorities and so we'll be
[4:25:22] taking all of the work that
[4:25:24] council directs today and
[4:25:26] wrapping it into that analysis
[4:25:28] so we can just show kind
[4:25:29] of where all of that sits. So
[4:25:31] you know, we just want to
[4:25:32] highlight that as we think
[4:25:33] about the different
[4:25:34] alternatives and as we look
[4:25:35] at different things to study
[4:25:36] and evaluate like all of that
[4:25:38] kind of goes into those
[4:25:40] aspects. So we did just want to
[4:25:42] touch briefly on the memos that
[4:25:44] we received from the city
[4:25:46] council just to kind
[4:25:47] of highlight some of the pieces
[4:25:48] in there. So firstly the memo
[4:25:51] from the mayor,
[4:25:53] councilmember campos cohen, the
[4:25:55] vice mayor and
[4:25:56] councilmember casey, you know,
[4:25:58] I think there's a number of the
[4:26:00] recommendations here absolutely
[4:26:01] we can accommodate within the
[4:26:02] analysis such as the parking
[4:26:04] minimums, the reference to the
[4:26:07] pickup work and then the
[4:26:09] neighborhood serving commercial
[4:26:11] and some of the considerations
[4:26:12] there. The two things that we
[4:26:14] just wanted to touch on
[4:26:15] obviously as I was just noting
[4:26:17] on capacity to the extent that
[4:26:19] we could have you know, very
[4:26:20] broad on our ranges that's
[4:26:23] additional analysis that we
[4:26:25] have to do so does potentially
[4:26:26] impact our timeline. We did
[4:26:29] talk to aicd earlier this week
[4:26:33] and I can dive in a little bit
[4:26:34] more about some of those
[4:26:35] conversations but I think one
[4:26:37] of our considerations from that
[4:26:38] conversation is that 16 when
[4:26:41] you think about an 8000 foot
[4:26:43] lot right now gets you a single
[4:26:45] unit at eight to the acre if
[4:26:48] you do a lot split under sb
[4:26:50] nine that's essentially 16 to
[4:26:52] the acre. And so aicd confirmed
[4:26:54] that that they're understanding
[4:26:55] the 16 to the eight doesn't
[4:26:57] really significantly move us
[4:26:58] forward so that would be a
[4:27:00] concern just as a risk as we
[4:27:02] think about that. The other was
[4:27:05] the recommendation around the
[4:27:06] cottle road, the south side
[4:27:07] community center. This is just
[4:27:09] a technical note that will
[4:27:10] bring back in the analysis the
[4:27:12] community center in the fire
[4:27:14] station are on the same parcel.
[4:27:16] so we would just recommend
[4:27:17] keeping the fire station as
[4:27:18] peaky otherwise we're fine with
[4:27:21] that one. Next up I just wanted
[4:27:23] to reference quickly the
[4:27:24] accounts the memo from
[4:27:25] councilmembers ken dallas ortiz
[4:27:27] and mulcahy. And so again I
[4:27:30] think the conversation around
[4:27:32] the second general plan
[4:27:34] amendment cycle is something we
[4:27:35] can accommodate and the
[4:27:37] discussion around the mixed use
[4:27:39] commercial sites around west
[4:27:41] san carlos is consistent with
[4:27:43] the staff approach obviously
[4:27:45] you know I'm sure we'll have a
[4:27:46] conversation around the mixed
[4:27:50] use neighborhood sites and
[4:27:53] around the corry neighborhood.
[4:27:56] I think you know councilmember
[4:27:57] little katie, you know you've
[4:27:59] put forward your recommendation
[4:28:00] through this memo as we think
[4:28:03] about that, you know the net
[4:28:05] unit yield on those sites is
[4:28:08] relatively low. So just being
[4:28:09] mindful of, you know, the
[4:28:11] benefit of maintaining some
[4:28:12] of the commercial right versus
[4:28:14] going to smaller projects as
[4:28:19] far as the streamlined process
[4:28:20] around steps on peak plans,
[4:28:23] that's something we would refer
[4:28:24] to the budget process obviously
[4:28:26] as a cost recovery department
[4:28:28] we don't have the ability to
[4:28:29] reduce fees in any way so
[4:28:31] council would have to
[4:28:32] supplement that program with
[4:28:33] additional money to support
[4:28:35] those applications. And then
[4:28:37] lastly sort of ground up on
[4:28:39] this one I apologize. I do want
[4:28:41] to touch on the recommendation
[4:28:42] about geographic exclusions. I
[4:28:45] think you know, certainly we'd
[4:28:47] been considering the impact on
[4:28:48] fire severity zones and it's
[4:28:50] something we're very mindful
[4:28:52] of and sort of you know,
[4:28:53] expanding that and being really
[4:28:54] careful about how we plan that
[4:28:56] is something we definitely want
[4:28:57] to accommodate. I do want to
[4:28:59] talk about the areas with
[4:29:01] medical high vmt, the planned
[4:29:04] development areas as well as
[4:29:06] the area specific plans. The
[4:29:08] challenge we run into with
[4:29:09] limiting geography is that p35
[4:29:13] in the housing element
[4:29:14] explicitly called out high
[4:29:15] resource areas and we talk
[4:29:17] about this and we can happily
[4:29:19] go into more details but I did
[4:29:20] want to just show a map of our
[4:29:21] high resource areas and so the
[4:29:23] very dark blue and the sort
[4:29:25] of teal color that doesn't come
[4:29:27] through very well in the screen
[4:29:28] but the darker colors are our
[4:29:30] high resource areas and they
[4:29:31] tend to align with many
[4:29:33] of those geographic exclusions.
[4:29:35] and so we feel that, you know,
[4:29:37] there's a potential for us to
[4:29:38] run afoul of the intent of the
[4:29:40] program to provide those
[4:29:42] opportunities in high resource
[4:29:43] areas if we start to exclude
[4:29:45] them through some of these
[4:29:46] geographical exemptions. And
[4:29:49] then the memo from
[4:29:52] councilmember committee and to
[4:29:52] rios, I think for the most
[4:29:54] part, you know, we can
[4:29:56] absolutely accommodate this in
[4:29:57] the analysis we did just want
[4:29:59] to point out that the work with
[4:30:00] idr is actually we actually
[4:30:01] have language included in the
[4:30:03] pledge priorities around
[4:30:05] density bonus law. It's an
[4:30:06] issue that we've run up against
[4:30:08] recently. I did also want to
[4:30:10] acknowledge the memo from
[4:30:12] councilmember dwan. Obviously
[4:30:13] there's less of a focus for
[4:30:15] city work for staff work and
[4:30:17] that's obviously more of a
[4:30:18] conversation for city council
[4:30:20] as far as deferring the
[4:30:21] discussion. So there's a lot
[4:30:23] there certainly there's a lot
[4:30:25] more detail that we're happy to
[4:30:27] go into as a part of the
[4:30:28] discussion and so staff's
[4:30:30] available for questions. Thank
[4:30:33] you chris. Just as I turn to
[4:30:35] toni to begin public comment, I
[4:30:36] believe we have over 100
[4:30:39] comment cards in the chamber
[4:30:40] and likely over 100 online. So
[4:30:43] even at a minute per speaker
[4:30:45] we're going to be here for a
[4:30:46] while. So again, I want to
[4:30:47] thank you all for your time,
[4:30:50] your participation. This is
[4:30:53] this is democracy. I think it's
[4:30:55] great. I do want to note that I
[4:30:58] know folks are going to be are
[4:31:00] going to want to cheer and boo
[4:31:01] and again, that's just going to
[4:31:02] slow us down and force us to
[4:31:04] stop and ask for order in the
[4:31:06] chamber. So I'd ask that you
[4:31:07] help us move efficiently
[4:31:08] through what may be 2 or 3
[4:31:10] hours of public comment. Toni,
[4:31:13] please I'll turn to you >> as a
[4:31:15] reminder speakers must comply
[4:31:17] with the city's code of conduct
[4:31:18] for public meetings. Please
[4:31:19] direct comments to the body
[4:31:20] limit remarks to the agenda
[4:31:22] item and observe the time limit
[4:31:24] conduct that materially
[4:31:25] disrupts the meeting or
[4:31:26] interferes with others ability
[4:31:27] to participate may result in
[4:31:29] muting or removal as authorized
[4:31:30] by law. I have 118 cards in
[4:31:35] person I have not looked I have
[4:31:39] 16 hands are up so far 119
[4:31:42] people online. I'm going to
[4:31:44] call between 20 and 30 names in
[4:31:47] person. Then I'll bump over
[4:31:48] online and call a few names
[4:31:50] there and then I'll go back and
[4:31:52] forth with the larger group
[4:31:54] being the in person if you want
[4:31:57] to speak and then exit we ask
[4:31:59] you to exit quietly because
[4:32:01] there's so many speakers we
[4:32:02] don't want the people at the
[4:32:03] end of the queue to have to
[4:32:04] wait extra time because we need
[4:32:06] to quiet people down. Thank
[4:32:08] you. So in the order that we
[4:32:10] received your cards larry james
[4:32:12] come on down robert. Robert
[4:32:16] squirrel doug andre kristen
[4:32:22] brasi, jim wendling and michael
[4:32:26] schumacher. Come on down larry
[4:32:38] james are larry and larry
[4:32:40] james. Yes. Thank you very
[4:32:43] much. Yeah, I stood up when you
[4:32:44] were five. It's confusing
[4:32:49] my ready to go I start. Hello
[4:32:51] mayor. Man and sound of the
[4:32:53] city council. Thank you for
[4:32:54] having me and thank you very
[4:32:55] much for your dedicated
[4:32:56] service. This is a very
[4:32:57] important issue to
[4:32:58] me personally. I am larry
[4:33:00] james. I'm a resident of the
[4:33:02] city of santa clara. I am a
[4:33:04] small business owner currently
[4:33:05] launching a startup called the
[4:33:07] always outdoorsman. I think
[4:33:09] this issue is extremely
[4:33:10] important because number one I
[4:33:12] have a very large concern about
[4:33:15] the lack of affordable housing
[4:33:17] as a percentage of the total
[4:33:19] that the state is imposing on
[4:33:20] the cities. Right. Is it 2% or
[4:33:22] I don't know what it is but
[4:33:25] okay, it's higher than that.
[4:33:25] but whatever it's not enough,
[4:33:27] right? We don't have enough
[4:33:28] affordable housing and that is
[4:33:29] the crisis right? So I would
[4:33:31] urge the city of san jose to
[4:33:34] make sure that you are using
[4:33:36] your properties that are
[4:33:37] available to you and build
[4:33:39] large complex as much as
[4:33:41] possible. Right. So that you're
[4:33:43] centralizing you know you want
[4:33:45] to build these smart cities and
[4:33:47] what whatever you're doing and
[4:33:48] I think that's great but what
[4:33:50] really concerns me >> I'm sorry
[4:33:54] that your time >> that's okay.
[4:33:57] I'll keep an eye on this. Yeah.
[4:34:00] next speaker okay. Good
[4:34:03] evening. My name is rob. I'm a
[4:34:04] principal planner at vta. We
[4:34:07] submitted a comment letter on
[4:34:08] friday. It's included in packet
[4:34:10] seven of the public comment
[4:34:12] just to reiterate whittier
[4:34:14] urges the city council to adopt
[4:34:15] the framework recommended by
[4:34:17] the planning commission
[4:34:18] including the recommendation in
[4:34:19] the small multifamily category
[4:34:21] to increase the density of our
[4:34:22] end to 32 units to the acre.
[4:34:25] vta also notes the city set a
[4:34:27] progressive direction in 2012
[4:34:29] excuse me 2022 of adopting a
[4:34:31] transit first policy as well as
[4:34:33] removing minimum parking
[4:34:34] requirements and we encourage
[4:34:36] the city council to build on
[4:34:38] those previous policies with
[4:34:40] this general plan for a review.
[4:34:42] and finally we would like to
[4:34:44] continue to work with the city
[4:34:46] city staff to look for a path
[4:34:48] for allowing residential mixed
[4:34:49] use and the vta sereny and
[4:34:52] santa teresa and sites. Thank
[4:34:54] you very much. >> thank you.
[4:34:56] next speaker matt larson and
[4:34:59] michael young come on down.
[4:35:02] yes, my name is jim wendling.
[4:35:04] I've lived here in san jose for
[4:35:05] over seven years and we have
[4:35:09] moved into our third house as
[4:35:11] we've moved up from our starter
[4:35:12] house and the house and our
[4:35:15] we're in our third house and
[4:35:17] it's a very nice single family
[4:35:19] residential area and what I see
[4:35:21] is a risk to people like us
[4:35:24] from what's happening and I
[4:35:25] know we need more housing but
[4:35:27] it's not clear what direction
[4:35:28] you're going in will provide
[4:35:30] more truly affordable housing.
[4:35:32] but when I heard the situation
[4:35:35] that was discussed before us
[4:35:37] today and you approved 1210 or
[4:35:39] 11 and nothing for something
[4:35:42] that had potential hazards and
[4:35:45] driving conditions right there
[4:35:48] and then you're going to check
[4:35:49] later to see if it worked out
[4:35:51] okay. I know you don't like
[4:35:53] doing those kinds of things.
[4:35:55] you'd rather be doing other
[4:35:56] things but we're going to
[4:35:59] go into a world where if you
[4:36:00] approve what's promoted thank
[4:36:03] >> you that your time next
[4:36:06] speaker no. Mayor >> mehan
[4:36:15] council members my name is
[4:36:16] michael young, member of the
[4:36:18] planning commission. I'm
[4:36:19] speaking to you today as a
[4:36:21] private citizen. What these
[4:36:25] proposals are is what kind of a
[4:36:27] city we want to have going >>
[4:36:28] forward. Do we want to have a
[4:36:30] city that's only affordable for
[4:36:32] people who work in tech and
[4:36:33] people like myself who've been
[4:36:35] here a long time or do we want
[4:36:36] to have a city that's
[4:36:37] affordable for working people?
[4:36:40] that's what this is about. We
[4:36:41] need to increase the supply
[4:36:43] of rental multifamily
[4:36:44] properties, increasing density
[4:36:47] in our single family
[4:36:48] neighborhoods is the best way
[4:36:49] >> to do that. You know, just a
[4:36:56] reminder we will remove people
[4:36:58] from the chamber if they're
[4:36:59] disrupting the meeting this
[4:37:01] individual gets his minute
[4:37:03] of public comment and his free
[4:37:04] speech his first amendment
[4:37:05] rights like everybody else. Can
[4:37:07] we please rewind the clock to
[4:37:09] where we pause and begin? Thank
[4:37:11] you. Go ahead, sir. Thank >>
[4:37:13] you. Mayor meehan. What I
[4:37:16] learned from my parents is much
[4:37:18] who are given much is expected.
[4:37:21] so I feel as a >> resident in a
[4:37:24] single family neighborhood I
[4:37:26] need to give back and the best
[4:37:27] way I can get back is to be
[4:37:29] open to some changes if a
[4:37:31] triplex. >> okay, thank you
[4:37:34] john klemski come >> mazursky I
[4:37:40] butchered that name john come
[4:37:41] on down and lynn paulson
[4:37:43] go ahead. Honorable mayor and
[4:37:46] city council I am a longtime
[4:37:48] resident of district nine and
[4:37:49] live in the homestead acres
[4:37:51] housing track adjoining the
[4:37:52] boundary of los gatos is an old
[4:37:54] neighborhood of very large lots
[4:37:56] and semi-rural nature. We were
[4:37:58] annexed into the city over our
[4:37:59] strenuous objections not too
[4:38:02] long ago developers sought to
[4:38:03] build nine houses on a single
[4:38:05] lot and homestead acres and was
[4:38:06] turned down by the city. That
[4:38:08] would not happen under this
[4:38:09] proposal. The resulting
[4:38:11] disintegration of cohesive
[4:38:13] neighbors and overflowing
[4:38:14] parking and increasing traffic
[4:38:16] will be a negative impact on
[4:38:18] the quality of life that we've
[4:38:19] worked so hard to maintain. I
[4:38:22] call upon you to protect our
[4:38:23] established neighborhoods and
[4:38:25] communities with reasonable
[4:38:27] with reasonable densities.
[4:38:30] please vote no thank you. Thank
[4:38:35] you. Next speaker okay. Good
[4:38:45] evening. I'm kristen from
[4:38:47] district ten five generations
[4:38:50] of my family and born and
[4:38:51] raised in san jose. And
[4:38:54] my concern is that you're
[4:38:55] forgetting about us. I'm not
[4:38:59] against affordable housing.
[4:39:01] there are some built by
[4:39:02] my house that are not full.
[4:39:04] there's a massive one being
[4:39:05] built down the street and
[4:39:07] there's another one that's
[4:39:08] planned to be developed in the
[4:39:11] next couple of years and I ask
[4:39:14] that you take into
[4:39:15] consideration the impact
[4:39:17] of utilities parking and
[4:39:20] traffic also I don't think we
[4:39:24] need to build because there are
[4:39:25] some in the area I don't think
[4:39:27] that they should be built in
[4:39:29] my neighborhood sorry single
[4:39:34] family >> single family homes
[4:39:36] like mine should the
[4:39:39] neighborhood should stay single
[4:39:40] family homes. So please >>
[4:39:47] thank you that your time next
[4:39:50] speaker I'm robert wood. I'm a
[4:39:58] housing chair of the california
[4:39:59] family association san jose
[4:40:02] state chapter. I'm also
[4:40:03] speaking for bill armor line.
[4:40:04] our political director who had
[4:40:06] to leave and we appreciate what
[4:40:09] the city planning has done in a
[4:40:12] thoughtful effort to work on
[4:40:15] residential neighborhoods. Also
[4:40:17] appreciate the thoughtful
[4:40:18] concerns of the city
[4:40:19] councilmember but we're very
[4:40:21] concerned about key areas
[4:40:23] of opportunity either omitted
[4:40:25] in this proposal. Number one,
[4:40:28] the growth areas in the
[4:40:29] existing plan we have 7.4 miles
[4:40:33] supposed to produce most
[4:40:34] of 170,000 units and
[4:40:36] unrealistic rules and abandoned
[4:40:39] are preventing abandoned
[4:40:40] commercial and office spaces
[4:40:41] from being developed nonprofit
[4:40:43] organizations are not being
[4:40:44] able to build housing on their
[4:40:46] land and we have 85mi² of land
[4:40:49] where zoning prohibits all
[4:40:50] housing just a little bit
[4:40:52] of that. There are some
[4:40:52] excellent opportunities in
[4:40:54] those areas. Sacramento and
[4:40:57] san diego. >> thank you that
[4:40:59] your time larry ames come on
[4:41:02] down and cindy h. Hi, I'm matt
[4:41:09] larson. I work in land use and
[4:41:11] housing policy for the last
[4:41:13] decade and is with that
[4:41:14] background that I say the
[4:41:15] following this is >> great the
[4:41:18] policy framework will have a
[4:41:19] meaningful impact on actually
[4:41:21] building the housing that
[4:41:22] san jose is striving to build.
[4:41:24] staff planning, commission and
[4:41:25] council all deserve our praise.
[4:41:28] there's also a lot of great
[4:41:29] additional policy in the >>
[4:41:30] council memos. The mayor's memo
[4:41:32] adds needed flexibility for
[4:41:34] building affordable housing
[4:41:35] that can dallas a mulcahey or
[4:41:38] t's proposal for additional
[4:41:41] general plan amendment cycle
[4:41:42] will help small developers who
[4:41:44] can't take on the carrying cost
[4:41:46] that larger institutional
[4:41:47] groups can and the tordillos
[4:41:49] command memo and local density
[4:41:52] bonus streamline and will be
[4:41:54] attractive to homebuilders
[4:41:56] while delivering san jose the
[4:41:58] development standards it
[4:41:59] desires. There's also they also
[4:42:02] raise a most important point.
[4:42:04] whatever you do don't risk
[4:42:06] housing element decertification
[4:42:07] and thank you all for your hard
[4:42:09] work. Thank >> you. Next
[4:42:10] speaker. My name is lynn
[4:42:14] paulson. I oppose the proposal
[4:42:16] to revise the general plan to
[4:42:18] increase density allowances for
[4:42:19] most single family home
[4:42:20] parcels. There are many reasons
[4:42:22] I'm opposed but I wanted to
[4:42:24] highlight the impact this could
[4:42:25] have on the tree canopy. I was
[4:42:27] at the council meeting last
[4:42:29] week where you reviewed the
[4:42:30] response to the grand jury
[4:42:32] report regarding the decline
[4:42:33] of san jose's tree canopy which
[4:42:35] is important to all residents
[4:42:37] in the city. During the
[4:42:39] discussion at the august 11th
[4:42:40] council meeting, the city
[4:42:42] forester stated that the
[4:42:43] greatest opportunity to
[4:42:45] reversing this decline in tree
[4:42:46] canopy could be a focus on
[4:42:48] actions related to residential
[4:42:50] parcels. Instead you have
[4:42:52] before you a proposal for
[4:42:53] increased density on single
[4:42:54] family home parcels. That would
[4:42:56] again put the tree canopy issue
[4:42:58] on low priority while not
[4:43:00] helping to reverse the current
[4:43:01] downward trend. Let alone meet
[4:43:02] the goal you have for 2051.
[4:43:04] thank you. Thank >> you. Next
[4:43:07] speaker jo dan from d-10 and
[4:43:11] paul come on >> down. I'm john
[4:43:13] paul mazursky and I was
[4:43:14] surprised to hear about the
[4:43:16] high density housing plan being
[4:43:17] proposed. I attended one of the
[4:43:20] neighborhood meetings but had
[4:43:21] no other communication from
[4:43:22] anywhere about the extent
[4:43:23] of the proposed plan. This plan
[4:43:26] would allow density in the city
[4:43:27] of san jose to be greater than
[4:43:28] new york city. That's your view
[4:43:31] of the city. That's what's
[4:43:33] being proposed. This is a city
[4:43:36] with no real mass transit.
[4:43:37] already long commute times that
[4:43:39] we have everywhere. How are we
[4:43:41] going to pay for that mass
[4:43:42] transit parking? They're
[4:43:43] talking about putting those
[4:43:44] plans in place but it's going
[4:43:45] to be difficult. And I've
[4:43:47] talked to many of your
[4:43:48] constituents and to a person
[4:43:50] they're just incredulous that
[4:43:52] this amount is being proposed.
[4:43:54] and as I understand this, once
[4:43:56] you change the density to a a
[4:43:58] higher density you won't be
[4:44:00] able to reduce it later. So you
[4:44:01] need to make your decision with
[4:44:02] your eyes open. So I support
[4:44:05] the need for new housing but I
[4:44:06] think you need to suggest that
[4:44:08] the planners do take they'll
[4:44:10] take a look at taking those
[4:44:12] high density areas in certain.
[4:44:15] I'm sorry that your time next
[4:44:17] speaker. >> larry ames d six
[4:44:22] neighborhood leaders group as
[4:44:24] we said in a letter we do have
[4:44:26] the need for more housing. The
[4:44:28] state says we must update our
[4:44:29] plans which will change our
[4:44:31] city. But please don't overdo
[4:44:34] it. These changes will be hard
[4:44:35] to undo. We do need to increase
[4:44:37] increased density. But 32 years
[4:44:39] an acre citywide is excessive
[4:44:41] and d six we have many good
[4:44:43] missing middle infill projects
[4:44:45] in japan centric in walkable
[4:44:47] neighborhoods and working out
[4:44:49] around 16 units in acre. The
[4:44:51] mayor's memo 2.1 b calls for
[4:44:54] staff to study this lower
[4:44:55] density. You the growth in
[4:44:57] mayor's.18 and four minimum
[4:45:00] parking standards and analysis
[4:45:03] memo. Don't build high density
[4:45:04] out and transit poor areas. The
[4:45:07] state law calls for some
[4:45:09] objective standards so our
[4:45:10] guidelines will need updating.
[4:45:12] and please ask south to find
[4:45:13] objective ways to our granting
[4:45:15] density bonuses, concessions
[4:45:17] and waivers. We want to work to
[4:45:19] work with the council and the
[4:45:21] city to make san jose better.
[4:45:22] >> thank you. Next speaker
[4:45:31] my my >> historical
[4:45:32] neighborhood opposes the boxy
[4:45:36] ideas that are being presented
[4:45:40] following our different ideas
[4:45:42] that might help put the housing
[4:45:46] >> item on these boxy houses
[4:45:50] and put parking lots underneath
[4:45:53] them rather than putting the
[4:45:55] parking anywhere and
[4:45:58] neighborhood the streets. Place
[4:46:00] more housing near existing high
[4:46:02] rises that high rise housing
[4:46:06] should not be there because
[4:46:08] that's where they work. Work
[4:46:12] with our county government to
[4:46:14] place housing around that. The
[4:46:17] techie >> areas where they
[4:46:21] work. Put business and housing
[4:46:24] around our large regional
[4:46:26] parks. Most of them have
[4:46:28] nothing. Protect our historical
[4:46:30] housing communities and thank
[4:46:33] you. That's your time. Next
[4:46:34] speaker. >> dear leaders please
[4:46:43] vote no on the framework as is
[4:46:46] it must include minimum parking
[4:46:48] any housing needs realistic off
[4:46:51] street parking because working
[4:46:53] class people need their cars.
[4:46:55] few workers have good train or
[4:46:57] bus service to their workplace
[4:46:59] at both ends of the work shift.
[4:47:01] a 16 unit building with no
[4:47:02] parking brings about 24 cars
[4:47:04] that compete for curb space.
[4:47:06] this opens a parking war in
[4:47:08] boston. People hoard curb space
[4:47:10] with old furniture and
[4:47:11] vandalize any car displacing
[4:47:12] that rivalry leads to vandalism
[4:47:15] escalating to violence.
[4:47:16] chicago's infamous projects
[4:47:18] lack parking and don't help
[4:47:20] residents hold down jobs.
[4:47:22] arrogant people say I'm
[4:47:23] interested in space for people
[4:47:25] not cars meaning I'm a people
[4:47:27] person. I don't care what you
[4:47:29] need. Okay. Please continue
[4:47:31] building housing near transit.
[4:47:33] please be practical and include
[4:47:35] parking. Again I can't stress
[4:47:38] this enough I spent a whole
[4:47:39] career working with factory
[4:47:41] people working second and
[4:47:42] third. >> thank you. Next
[4:47:46] speaker series qa. Come on
[4:47:48] down. Ron >> no last name and
[4:47:50] robert. >> okay. I'm
[4:47:56] paul parrott and pretty much
[4:47:57] everything he said the
[4:47:58] community has high density
[4:48:00] areas single family
[4:48:01] neighborhoods, countryside.
[4:48:02] bottom line is we do not want
[4:48:04] our neighborhoods destroyed. We
[4:48:05] spent quite a bit of time
[4:48:07] protecting them. Turns out the
[4:48:09] council actually works for us.
[4:48:11] so if the council votes yes for
[4:48:13] this. Anyone that votes for
[4:48:15] this and raise >> your hand.
[4:48:16] I'm against it. No clapping.
[4:48:17] are you against it? Raise your
[4:48:18] hand. No clapping. Okay.
[4:48:21] everyone I've talked to is
[4:48:23] vietnamese lee against this.
[4:48:24] all right. So any council
[4:48:27] person that votes to to do this
[4:48:30] we are going to recall and
[4:48:32] it'll be about the easiest
[4:48:33] recall we'll ever see. Okay.
[4:48:35] and I know you want to run
[4:48:36] again in 28. I read the article
[4:48:38] you won't be around. So there
[4:48:40] you go. Thank you. Next speaker
[4:48:45] >> we need to ask >> yourself a
[4:48:51] simple question what kind
[4:48:53] of city do we want san jose to
[4:48:55] be? For generations people have
[4:48:57] worked their entire lives to
[4:48:59] buy in a mature, established
[4:49:01] neighborhood. They paid their
[4:49:03] mortgages, property taxes and
[4:49:04] their fair share. That home was
[4:49:06] more than an investment. It was
[4:49:08] an american dream. This isn't
[4:49:11] simply about adding housing. It
[4:49:12] fundamentally changes the
[4:49:14] character of a neighborhood.
[4:49:15] the families worked decades to
[4:49:17] create and preserve. We have to
[4:49:20] ask are we solving a housing
[4:49:22] problem? Are we sacrificing the
[4:49:24] quality of life and established
[4:49:25] neighborhoods because of higher
[4:49:27] density produces more tax
[4:49:29] revenue and development fees?
[4:49:31] we need responsible growth like
[4:49:33] growth at any cost. Please
[4:49:36] protect our mature
[4:49:37] neighborhoods. Respect the
[4:49:38] people who work their whole
[4:49:39] lives to own them and make sure
[4:49:41] san jose remains the city where
[4:49:43] the american dream is protected
[4:49:46] not taken away. >> thanks.
[4:49:49] thank you. Next speaker >>
[4:49:51] alice and katherine matheson.
[4:49:53] come on down. Good evening.
[4:49:56] forgive me if I don't make
[4:49:57] sense. I'm very nervous. I'm
[4:49:59] sorry. Should you not sign as a
[4:50:00] state and an intern for vote on
[4:50:02] climate in san jose
[4:50:03] environmentally sustainable
[4:50:04] land use practices are
[4:50:05] imperative for our city despite
[4:50:07] a dedicated section for
[4:50:09] environmental stewardship. The
[4:50:10] general plan does not outline
[4:50:11] public health or environmental
[4:50:12] studies and regulations high
[4:50:14] energy demanding buildings.
[4:50:15] this city has stressed its
[4:50:16] commitment to implementing
[4:50:17] rigorous environmental
[4:50:18] standards on water and energy
[4:50:19] use. However, noise ordinance
[4:50:21] noncompliance and reports
[4:50:22] of rolling blackouts for
[4:50:23] residents the use of fossil
[4:50:24] fuel generators for backup
[4:50:25] power and potable water line
[4:50:26] easements are inadequate to
[4:50:28] achieve this city's stated
[4:50:29] commitments. The lack of care
[4:50:31] in the general plan is
[4:50:32] worrisome in the lead up to
[4:50:33] developing uniform standards. I
[4:50:35] urge this council to include
[4:50:37] plans for both cumulative
[4:50:38] impact studies and robust rules
[4:50:39] for covering water and clean
[4:50:41] power use for such buildings.
[4:50:42] thank you so much. Thank you.
[4:50:44] next speaker. Also brenda
[4:50:47] doleman, come on down. >> I'm
[4:50:54] here to urge you to vote no on
[4:50:56] item 10.3. It's missing middle
[4:50:59] mom sense. This proposal goes
[4:51:01] far beyond any state
[4:51:02] requirement. No other city in
[4:51:04] santa clara county goes it
[4:51:05] comes anywhere close to
[4:51:07] sweeping. It would allow a
[4:51:08] three story building high
[4:51:09] density of virtually any
[4:51:10] residential lot with no onsite
[4:51:13] parking requirement and no
[4:51:14] firebreak approval. Once it's
[4:51:16] on the books these projects
[4:51:18] skip public hearings, planning
[4:51:19] commissions review or even
[4:51:21] council vote. The impacts are
[4:51:23] permanent. More cars are
[4:51:25] already on already crowded
[4:51:27] streets and a strain on
[4:51:28] utilities and roads and
[4:51:29] according to the city's own
[4:51:30] study. Little to no affordable
[4:51:32] housing is even produced.
[4:51:34] limited public comment by so
[4:51:36] far cannot be mistaken for
[4:51:37] support. Many of us are only
[4:51:39] now learning about how far road
[4:51:42] and irreversible these changes
[4:51:43] are. Please reject this
[4:51:45] proposal at least take it off
[4:51:46] the consent calendar and allow
[4:51:48] for public hearing at least.
[4:51:52] thank you. Next speaker. Do you
[4:52:01] know what fulfilling an
[4:52:03] american dream means? It's not
[4:52:04] living in a condo, an apartment
[4:52:06] or in some high density housing
[4:52:09] but the ability to live in a
[4:52:11] single family house with our
[4:52:13] own little yard. It's absurd
[4:52:15] that now you're seriously
[4:52:16] proposing to destroy every
[4:52:17] single family and neighborhood
[4:52:19] permanently on the neighborhood
[4:52:21] to build high density housing
[4:52:23] on single family lots. I'm
[4:52:25] guessing that all >> of you are
[4:52:26] currently living in your own
[4:52:27] single family home without an a
[4:52:29] unit or even sitting in an
[4:52:31] apartment right next to your
[4:52:32] house. So why would you wish
[4:52:34] other people to live in such a
[4:52:35] condition? So say it's not hong
[4:52:38] kong. There is no lack of space
[4:52:40] to provide additional apartment
[4:52:41] building without messing with
[4:52:43] the existing single family
[4:52:44] neighborhood. Just look
[4:52:46] at block and block of vacant
[4:52:47] old high tech building in north
[4:52:49] san jose with zero productive
[4:52:51] use. Please vote no for this
[4:52:53] nonsensical proposal. You do
[4:52:55] not want to be remembered as
[4:52:57] the one who permanently
[4:52:58] destroys >> san jose and thank
[4:53:01] our next speaker. >> I'm going
[4:53:07] to call wait before there and
[4:53:10] I've already spoken. So I >>
[4:53:14] know you can only speak once on
[4:53:15] each item. I'm sorry. Thank
[4:53:17] you. I'm going to >> go ahead
[4:53:20] and come up to the microphone.
[4:53:21] before you speak I'm going to
[4:53:22] call five people online. Next
[4:53:24] I'm going to go ahead and say
[4:53:25] their names so they can kind
[4:53:27] of wake up. Caller 7 to 0 five
[4:53:30] brian, diane todd and james >>
[4:53:32] patterson. Go ahead. Mayor and
[4:53:36] council members reject the
[4:53:38] missing middle >> framework
[4:53:39] recommendation in the general
[4:53:41] plan for your review. San jose
[4:53:43] residents do not want three
[4:53:44] storey apartment complexes by
[4:53:47] right in residential
[4:53:48] neighborhoods without parking.
[4:53:50] smart growth means
[4:53:51] concentrating density along
[4:53:53] commercial corridors, transit
[4:53:54] hubs not quiet residential
[4:53:56] streets while urban sprawl
[4:53:58] creates long term municipal
[4:54:00] budget deficits. Sb 79 already
[4:54:03] impacts over 40,000 parcels
[4:54:06] near transit stops unlocking up
[4:54:08] to 500,000 units for decades to
[4:54:10] come. Sb >> nine permits four
[4:54:13] units per lot to not go beyond
[4:54:15] state minimums to strain our
[4:54:16] infrastructure, stretch
[4:54:18] emergency services and worsen
[4:54:20] our job to housing ratio cap
[4:54:23] residential neighborhood
[4:54:25] density at four units per lot.
[4:54:27] we need direct leadership.
[4:54:28] please direct our planning
[4:54:30] director city manager ig our
[4:54:32] team to aggressively lobby hk a
[4:54:35] bag drop off in sacramento.
[4:54:38] thank you. That's >> your time.
[4:54:39] caller 7205 please press star
[4:54:42] six to unmute >> and that's
[4:54:46] your last four digits of your
[4:54:48] number. >> hello. Yes go ahead.
[4:54:54] yes >> I'm sj born and raised
[4:54:56] south san jose will go in high
[4:54:58] school class of 2000. I got to
[4:55:00] say the beauty of willow glen
[4:55:01] is its long standing trees,
[4:55:03] nature communities and single
[4:55:05] family homes. This is pure
[4:55:07] developer greed. There are
[4:55:09] better places for small condos
[4:55:11] especially along monterey road
[4:55:12] towards downtown. Don't ruin
[4:55:15] san jose. Be careful of the
[4:55:16] precedence that we set. If
[4:55:18] single family homes for single
[4:55:20] families. >> thank you. >>
[4:55:23] thank you brian followed by
[4:55:27] diane. Thank you. I can't see
[4:55:32] the place where I was
[4:55:33] at because I signed something
[4:55:35] but I had a house and it
[4:55:36] disappeared. And now you can
[4:55:39] go out there and visit and
[4:55:40] there's literally thousands
[4:55:41] of units on top of there. If
[4:55:44] people tell you they're going
[4:55:45] to build moderately it gravity
[4:55:47] will fail before that happens.
[4:55:49] sometime what I'm going to I
[4:55:51] wrote an email that covers all
[4:55:52] the stuff everybody said.
[4:55:54] sometimes you want to walk
[4:55:55] outside, look up and see the
[4:55:58] stars. I understand that's
[4:55:59] emotional and so it doesn't
[4:56:01] have any meaning and never have
[4:56:03] but I can just tell you walk
[4:56:08] softly because once this stuff
[4:56:09] gets in place it won't go away
[4:56:11] and they will go to the maximum
[4:56:13] whenever they get a chance.
[4:56:15] thank you. Thank >> you, diane
[4:56:18] followed by todd in high high.
[4:56:28] please both know to submit our
[4:56:30] recommendation. The general
[4:56:32] plan has an urban reserve area.
[4:56:37] why isn't the urban area being
[4:56:41] considered for high density
[4:56:43] housing plan planning? Is that
[4:56:46] of. Isn't this the ideal
[4:56:49] situation >> to use that
[4:56:51] reserve? There is a lot of land
[4:56:54] there that is not open space.
[4:56:57] it has almost zero density. I
[4:57:00] recommended to use that are
[4:57:03] going to visit the area for the
[4:57:05] estate certification instead
[4:57:07] of disrupting all the
[4:57:08] neighborhood of the city. Thank
[4:57:10] you. >> thank you, todd
[4:57:14] followed by james. Hello. When
[4:57:23] so many residents take the time
[4:57:25] to oppose this agenda item only
[4:57:27] to see memorandums offering
[4:57:30] concessions to wealthier
[4:57:32] suburban todd you cut out these
[4:57:43] >> plans purposely pit
[4:57:44] communities against each other
[4:57:47] while residents simply struggle
[4:57:49] to protect their neighborhoods.
[4:57:51] this entire process feels
[4:57:53] performative and our concerns
[4:57:55] are ultimately ignored. I live
[4:57:58] in an urban transit village
[4:58:00] area so I'm here to support
[4:58:02] other neighborhoods and
[4:58:03] advocate for what is best for
[4:58:05] san jose as a whole. We haven't
[4:58:07] even seen the impacts of the
[4:58:09] urban villages or these new
[4:58:11] state laws yet and we are
[4:58:13] already moving to implement
[4:58:15] blanket policies that strip
[4:58:16] away local oversight. Giving up
[4:58:19] our voice makes no sense. Also
[4:58:23] no parking >> needed near
[4:58:24] trent. Thank you james. Before
[4:58:28] I click allow to speak I'm
[4:58:30] going to call a few names for
[4:58:32] people in person so you can
[4:58:33] make your way down while james
[4:58:34] is speaking. I have cole buford
[4:58:37] bar a c quack. >> it looks
[4:58:41] like. So I guess why wake sioux
[4:58:46] >> and ute or garza? Okay
[4:58:51] james, I'm letting you speak
[4:58:53] now. >> I reso reside in oak
[4:58:58] grove neighborhood in district
[4:58:59] two. Having seen impacts on
[4:59:02] my neighborhood when apartments
[4:59:03] were allowed to change their
[4:59:05] parking rules from multiple
[4:59:07] cars for free to one free and
[4:59:09] any others a monthly charge in
[4:59:12] the carnage it laid to the
[4:59:13] surrounding neighbors. I
[4:59:15] emphatically say this is a
[4:59:17] poorly thought out solution and
[4:59:19] I would expect the city council
[4:59:21] and mayor to vote no on this
[4:59:23] item. This is in direct
[4:59:24] conflict to beautify sj as it
[4:59:27] will lead to beautiful
[4:59:28] neighborhoods. It will
[4:59:30] ultimately force neighbor
[4:59:31] against neighbor parking wars.
[4:59:34] to see actual impacts just
[4:59:35] stroll down walnut blossom
[4:59:36] avenue and the surrounding
[4:59:37] streets across from the
[4:59:38] apartments including haze and
[4:59:41] lead avenue in the evening and
[4:59:43] talk to residents in that area.
[4:59:45] this will break the very fibers
[4:59:47] of a good neighborhood if
[4:59:48] allowed to move forward. I
[4:59:50] expect nonsense ideas like this
[4:59:52] from the current presidential
[4:59:53] administration but not from
[4:59:55] my city leaders. I saw input
[4:59:57] posted indicating the city that
[4:59:59] your >> time next speaker in
[5:00:02] person. Hello. My name's cole.
[5:00:08] >> I do agree with a lot
[5:00:09] of other folks that you know,
[5:00:11] no parking minimum would be a
[5:00:13] bad idea because people have
[5:00:17] cars and made a move into these
[5:00:18] spots hoping to you know will
[5:00:21] park on the street anyways and
[5:00:22] that it does create lot
[5:00:24] of difficulties for working
[5:00:26] class folks. Also I would
[5:00:31] recommend that the general plan
[5:00:33] also include any kind
[5:00:35] of reviews of data centers or
[5:00:39] large energy projects as I do
[5:00:43] believe in the humanist values
[5:00:44] of 2040 plan such as healthy
[5:00:47] neighborhoods and you know data
[5:00:51] centers are also hungry for
[5:00:53] land as well and I hope that
[5:00:55] these data centers are not
[5:00:56] taking priority over more
[5:00:58] housing. >> thank you. Thank
[5:01:02] you. Next speaker I'll wait for
[5:01:07] mahan. He could hear you in the
[5:01:10] back. >> council members I'm
[5:01:12] guilford bar for two years in
[5:01:14] district ten. Please reject
[5:01:18] item 10.3 the proposal >> would
[5:01:20] quadruple density in
[5:01:22] neighborhoods designed for
[5:01:24] single family homes allowing
[5:01:26] for two six units by right no
[5:01:29] parking requirements, no public
[5:01:31] hearings that means no notice,
[5:01:33] no neighbor input, no account
[5:01:36] just permanent citywide
[5:01:38] rezoning. Here's what troubles
[5:01:40] me most saturday doesn't >>
[5:01:42] need this to meet state
[5:01:44] mandate. We can hit our 62,000
[5:01:48] target homes under the existing
[5:01:49] general plan which already
[5:01:51] directs growth toward transit
[5:01:53] corridors. This isn't about
[5:01:55] opposing more housing. It's
[5:01:57] about opposing a permanent >>
[5:01:59] change that bypasses residents,
[5:02:02] invites investor driven
[5:02:04] redevelopment and eliminates
[5:02:06] public voice in there. >> thank
[5:02:09] you that your time? Next
[5:02:10] speaker. >> hi my name is all
[5:02:17] too I am from dayton. Two
[5:02:19] things one you don't have a
[5:02:20] walkable city and some say if
[5:02:22] you want to build housing that
[5:02:25] overcrowded or places it will
[5:02:28] lead to a place where nobody
[5:02:31] can park and that means you
[5:02:32] need to build a walkable city
[5:02:34] first. >> second, I would you
[5:02:37] like to look at the
[5:02:37] sociological sociological
[5:02:40] impact this has? First of all,
[5:02:43] if you have overcrowding in
[5:02:45] places you will get people
[5:02:48] having more crime, higher crime
[5:02:50] rates, you will have more
[5:02:51] vandalism. You will have stuff
[5:02:52] like more what's it called road
[5:02:57] rage and you will make people
[5:03:01] not being proud in their
[5:03:02] neighborhoods anymore because
[5:03:04] if you want to have people have
[5:03:06] pride in something they need to
[5:03:08] have a say in something. Thank
[5:03:10] you. Thank you. Next speaker
[5:03:12] michael bryant. Come on down,
[5:03:14] katherine. Look, no last name.
[5:03:17] go >> ahead. I urge you to
[5:03:18] reject this so-called missing
[5:03:20] middle housing plan forcing up
[5:03:21] to 16 unit apartment buildings
[5:03:23] into single family home
[5:03:24] neighborhoods with no onset
[5:03:26] parking, drastically reduced
[5:03:27] setbacks and no public input
[5:03:29] will not magically produce
[5:03:30] lower income homes. That's not
[5:03:32] leadership. That's a pipe
[5:03:33] dream. This doesn't improve the
[5:03:34] quality of life for residents
[5:03:36] of san jose. Instead it
[5:03:37] enriches investors and
[5:03:39] developers. This plan will
[5:03:40] continue to destroy the
[5:03:41] standard of living and impact
[5:03:42] the safety of residents in your
[5:03:44] community. San jose has
[5:03:45] certainly had its share
[5:03:46] of problems over the last
[5:03:47] years. The california state
[5:03:49] auditor found that not only
[5:03:50] could the 300 million set aside
[5:03:52] to help the homeless not be
[5:03:53] adequately accounted for but
[5:03:54] also that san jose had no
[5:03:56] cohesive plan for building
[5:03:58] affordable homes. This is
[5:03:59] anything but a cohesive plan.
[5:04:01] this is madness. As noted, this
[5:04:03] plan is not needed to achieve
[5:04:05] the current reno numbers.
[5:04:07] future reno developments should
[5:04:08] be planned near transit. Why
[5:04:10] would you want to be on record
[5:04:11] in contributing to the decline
[5:04:12] of quality of life in san jose?
[5:04:14] your job is to make san jose
[5:04:15] better and safer. Vote >> now.
[5:04:18] thank you, mr. Speaker. I >>
[5:04:21] ask you again to please use
[5:04:23] your jazz >> hands or however
[5:04:25] you want to do it quietly so
[5:04:26] that we can get through these
[5:04:28] all quietly and respectfully.
[5:04:30] >> yeah, because you want to
[5:04:32] hear people like me, don't you?
[5:04:33] right. You want to hear people
[5:04:35] like me because I vote for you
[5:04:36] to reject this. Do you guys
[5:04:38] want to live next door >> to a
[5:04:40] housing project I would build?
[5:04:42] I don't think so. I would build
[5:04:44] a mini cruise ship if anyone
[5:04:45] knows what a cruise ship is.
[5:04:47] okay. Yeah. People know, don't
[5:04:49] they? Wouldn't you? I mean any
[5:04:52] of you. Would you want me to
[5:04:53] live next door to you and build
[5:04:54] something? Ask yourself that
[5:04:56] any one of you on the dais. Ask
[5:04:57] yourself if you want to live
[5:04:58] next door to me. I don't think
[5:05:00] so. What I would build you
[5:05:02] wouldn't like you could turn
[5:05:04] into section eight. That could
[5:05:05] be terrible, wouldn't it? Could
[5:05:07] you imagine that this thing is
[5:05:08] designed for specular data's
[5:05:10] flippers developers? Just take
[5:05:13] a look at the >> fair downtown.
[5:05:15] no one wants to live in it.
[5:05:16] that was approved of high
[5:05:18] density housing. I call it the
[5:05:20] fail. And that's exactly what
[5:05:22] this is going to be. If if you
[5:05:24] guys allow this to happen, it's
[5:05:26] going to is going to turn our
[5:05:27] neighborhoods into something
[5:05:29] that you don't want to live in
[5:05:30] and you don't want me to live
[5:05:31] next door to you if you vote
[5:05:33] for this because you wouldn't
[5:05:34] like I could guaran >> thank
[5:05:35] you that your time. Darrell
[5:05:37] come on down. And and melissa,
[5:05:46] I >> strongly urge you to vote
[5:05:48] no on the permanent stay
[5:05:50] missing middle proposal. The
[5:05:52] reason why is I can't describe
[5:05:54] to you. According to this plan,
[5:05:57] my rising neighbor can build up
[5:06:00] to six housing units >> in
[5:06:03] my left side. Neighbor can >>
[5:06:05] build up to 12 units. And every
[5:06:09] one if every unit need two
[5:06:11] cards. I do. My calculation is
[5:06:14] a 50 >> six cards and you don't
[5:06:18] require any outside parking.
[5:06:21] and I tell you I'm down to my.
[5:06:24] my street is a school. And you
[5:06:27] know that school >> traffic. So
[5:06:29] you tell me why. Why? Sure I
[5:06:31] do. And they can be close to
[5:06:34] the property line and find
[5:06:37] my approval. They don't need
[5:06:38] hearing. Don't need the
[5:06:40] neighbor input public input.
[5:06:43] and once they approve it's a
[5:06:44] permanent >> and reversible.
[5:06:47] and also >> thank you that your
[5:06:48] time. Go come on down. Lori
[5:06:54] droste, good evening. Good
[5:07:00] afternoon. My name is michael
[5:07:02] bryant. You've all gotten many
[5:07:05] emails from me since august and
[5:07:07] I've only heard from two people
[5:07:09] on this council. This is campus
[5:07:12] office and I got a face on with
[5:07:14] george casey. So I don't know
[5:07:16] where the rest of you been but
[5:07:18] I'm upset about that. I
[5:07:21] strongly >> am against us. I've
[5:07:23] lived in san jose for 68 years.
[5:07:26] I got my first house when I was
[5:07:28] 22 years old. It took me 80
[5:07:30] hours a week to pay that
[5:07:32] mortgage. I got my second house
[5:07:34] when I got close to 30 and I'm
[5:07:36] living out in santa teresa now
[5:07:38] in a nice neighborhood. And it
[5:07:40] took me 80 hours a week to pay
[5:07:42] that house to I was in
[5:07:44] my mid-forties almost 50. So
[5:07:46] now I'm retired. I'm living
[5:07:48] there. I'm comfortable. And
[5:07:50] this is not going to work for
[5:07:52] me. So you guys need to rethink
[5:07:54] this because I guarantee you
[5:07:56] anybody that votes for this I
[5:07:57] will do everything I can to get
[5:07:59] you thrown out in the next
[5:08:00] election. >> thank you. Next
[5:08:03] speaker. >> good evening. And
[5:08:11] paulson representing yimby law
[5:08:14] in be lost sent you a letter >>
[5:08:16] today supporting this up
[5:08:19] zoning. I'll summarize >>
[5:08:21] something like preventing
[5:08:23] someone from building four
[5:08:25] townhouses on their own
[5:08:26] property is a huge property
[5:08:29] right restriction. The supreme
[5:08:32] court and the roberts court in
[5:08:34] particular have shown a lot
[5:08:36] of deference to property rights
[5:08:38] saying that if a city restricts
[5:08:41] property rights it has to be
[5:08:44] the least restrictive way to
[5:08:47] achieve their goal. Yimby >>
[5:08:49] law believes that single family
[5:08:52] zoning >> is >> not the least
[5:08:55] restrictive way to achieve any
[5:08:58] goal. And they are prepared to
[5:09:05] go to court to enforce >> this
[5:09:06] work. You should support >>
[5:09:09] this proposal because it's
[5:09:10] right and >> thank you that
[5:09:12] your time. Milo trout come on
[5:09:15] down. Terrace salon and
[5:09:18] patricia macdonald. >> good
[5:09:22] evening mayor and city council.
[5:09:24] I suppose I'm one of those rare
[5:09:26] examples of a single family
[5:09:27] homeowner who likes living
[5:09:29] between two multiplexes. I'm
[5:09:32] here to speak in support of the
[5:09:33] staff recommendation and the
[5:09:35] tordillos in the committee
[5:09:36] memo. We all feel the effects
[5:09:38] of the housing crisis just this
[5:09:39] year we saw the elementary
[5:09:41] school down our block close.
[5:09:42] we've seen more friends priced
[5:09:44] out of our city and we've seen
[5:09:45] our workers driving long
[5:09:46] commutes because they can't
[5:09:47] afford to live in a city that
[5:09:49] they serve. This week
[5:09:51] my sister's visiting from new
[5:09:52] york to celebrate her first
[5:09:53] pregnancy the first baby in the
[5:09:55] family born in our generation.
[5:09:58] I wish she could afford to move
[5:09:59] here and raise my future nephew
[5:10:01] closer to family instead
[5:10:03] of thousands of miles away. >>
[5:10:05] but like for the majority
[5:10:06] of our residents already living
[5:10:07] here, that dream is too far out
[5:10:09] of reach. Proposals like this
[5:10:11] are about more than numbers
[5:10:12] of dwelling units per acre.
[5:10:14] there are concrete steps you
[5:10:15] can take right now to reverse
[5:10:16] years of an action that has led
[5:10:18] to this housing crisis. Today
[5:10:20] we've heard from a lot
[5:10:21] of people who have lived in
[5:10:22] san jose for. >> thank you that
[5:10:24] your time. Next speaker. >>
[5:10:30] hello, I'm laurie drost,
[5:10:32] housing policy director at spur
[5:10:34] and a former berkeley city
[5:10:35] council member where I authored
[5:10:37] missing little housing and
[5:10:38] parking reforms. We can't solve
[5:10:40] a housing shortage by making
[5:10:42] housing harder to build. Please
[5:10:45] maintain at least 32 dwelling
[5:10:46] units per acre. That is already
[5:10:48] really modest allowing duplexes
[5:10:51] triplexes and smaller
[5:10:52] multifamily homes. When a
[5:10:54] detached home costs 1.7 million
[5:10:57] the american dream
[5:10:59] of homeownership is slipping
[5:11:00] out of reach. Messy middle
[5:11:02] housing creates another path
[5:11:03] and opens more neighborhoods to
[5:11:05] more families. Also, please
[5:11:07] don't bring parking
[5:11:08] requirements back artificial
[5:11:10] mandates consume land, increase
[5:11:12] cost and make small projects
[5:11:14] infeasible. These homes may
[5:11:16] stand for 100 years. We can't
[5:11:18] predict how people will travel
[5:11:20] in 2126. Please maintain 32
[5:11:23] units per acre, reject parking
[5:11:25] minimums and keep the american
[5:11:26] dream within reach. >> thank
[5:11:29] you. Next speaker current home
[5:11:33] yo come on down and linda fall.
[5:11:35] >> I'm terri >> swain. I'm a
[5:11:39] local realtor here in san jose.
[5:11:41] I'm california did not mandate
[5:11:44] >> 32 dwelling units per acre.
[5:11:46] that was with san jose's that
[5:11:48] was san jose's choice the
[5:11:50] planners. Then use the number
[5:11:53] >> to create the figures for
[5:11:54] the missing middle chart. The
[5:11:56] planners showed no data. Why
[5:11:58] 2622 or 18 wouldn't have worked
[5:12:01] instead of 32. Before moving
[5:12:04] forward please ask planning may
[5:12:07] model several lower density
[5:12:10] alternate is including the
[5:12:11] lowest additional capacity
[5:12:13] required by hpd. After after
[5:12:16] taking into >> account capacity
[5:12:18] that will already be provided
[5:12:20] through sb nine and other state
[5:12:21] pels planning has paso level
[5:12:24] data use roi is helpful and
[5:12:28] make policy decisions but not
[5:12:32] to make policy decisions but to
[5:12:34] quickly model different
[5:12:35] scenarios and incorporate
[5:12:37] public feedback. Thank you that
[5:12:40] your >> time next speaker may
[5:12:43] or may hand council members I'm
[5:12:44] >> a san jose resident and a
[5:12:46] member. Hi. Wait how did that
[5:12:48] >> happen? Go ahead. >> hi.
[5:12:51] I've lived in my single family
[5:12:53] resident neighborhood for
[5:12:55] almost 40 years and I walk the
[5:12:57] neighborhood every morning and
[5:13:00] I see the changes that are
[5:13:01] occurring and I'm vehemently
[5:13:04] against what's happening. I see
[5:13:08] these monstrous houses and
[5:13:09] beautiful single family homes
[5:13:12] that are one stories being torn
[5:13:14] down and they are like monster
[5:13:18] houses. There seems to be no
[5:13:19] moratorium on the heights and
[5:13:22] they over power everything they
[5:13:27] there's no sunlight. I mean and
[5:13:28] it's it's something that just
[5:13:30] really needs to be looked at. I
[5:13:33] implore you to look at other
[5:13:34] cities and the studies that
[5:13:37] they've done before venturing
[5:13:41] into something like this and
[5:13:44] taking a closer look on the
[5:13:46] impacts of building this type
[5:13:50] of society. The streets look.
[5:13:53] thank you that your time? We
[5:13:55] had a glitch with zuma
[5:13:56] at unmuted somebody I don't
[5:13:57] know how it did that but I'm
[5:13:58] going to go ahead and go over
[5:13:59] to her because she had started
[5:14:01] speaking and then we'll come
[5:14:02] back to you, sir. Sheila,
[5:14:06] go ahead. It >> looks like she
[5:14:13] may have went away so I'm going
[5:14:14] to go ahead and move.
[5:14:15] permission to speak? She can
[5:14:16] raise her hand again but I
[5:14:17] don't know what happened there.
[5:14:18] just wanted to make sure
[5:14:19] everything was fair. Go ahead,
[5:14:20] sir. Thank you for waiting.
[5:14:22] sure. >> hi. I live in an
[5:14:25] apartment building. It's right
[5:14:26] next to a single family home.
[5:14:28] we can see into their yard.
[5:14:30] does this make me and my family
[5:14:31] neighborhood destroyers? No.
[5:14:33] our kids play together. I would
[5:14:35] move into an 8 or 10 story
[5:14:37] apartment building. Does this
[5:14:38] make me a bad person? No. It
[5:14:40] makes me someone living in a
[5:14:42] world class city that happens
[5:14:44] to be caught up in the results
[5:14:45] of decades of poor planning
[5:14:47] decisions. And here we have an
[5:14:49] opportunity for council to
[5:14:50] follow staff's recommendations
[5:14:52] to maintain a certified housing
[5:14:54] element at two six north
[5:14:56] winchester, for example, is a
[5:14:58] prime location that will
[5:14:59] actually deliver housing. But
[5:15:02] the neighbors and council
[5:15:03] member mulcahy are engaging in
[5:15:05] a classic moving of goalposts
[5:15:07] by asking for yet another
[5:15:08] zoning reduction on exactly the
[5:15:10] parcel that is most likely to
[5:15:12] produce housing. You are the
[5:15:14] decision makers. The time is
[5:15:16] now to be bold and meet the
[5:15:18] glaring housing need. Do not
[5:15:20] cave to demands that amount to
[5:15:22] nice to have that amount
[5:15:23] tonight. Thank you. Next
[5:15:26] speaker andrew. So come on
[5:15:29] down, corinne. I already called
[5:15:31] corinne. Trish mcdonald's.
[5:15:35] janet spoke. Okay. Trish
[5:15:38] interested? Okay. Go ahead.
[5:15:42] okay. Good evening. I'm corinne
[5:15:45] tamayo. I live in district six,
[5:15:47] the willow glen neighborhood. I
[5:15:49] have been in my willow glen
[5:15:50] home for 37 years. Most of the
[5:15:53] homes in my neighborhood are 90
[5:15:56] years old at this point. I am
[5:15:59] vehemently opposed to this plan
[5:16:02] to dramatically increase zoning
[5:16:04] in our single-family
[5:16:05] neighborhood. I fear it will
[5:16:07] fundamentally alter the willow
[5:16:09] glen historic neighbor hood
[5:16:11] character character. It will
[5:16:14] tax our neighborhoods aging
[5:16:16] infrastructure such as sewage
[5:16:18] and plumbing capacity. The
[5:16:20] localized electric grid and
[5:16:21] water supply. It will result in
[5:16:23] severe congestion due to lack
[5:16:26] of parking. It will severely
[5:16:28] impact and destroy the
[5:16:29] neighborhoods. Mature a tree
[5:16:31] canopy which is already only
[5:16:33] at a dismal 13.5% for the city
[5:16:36] of san jose. Residential lots
[5:16:38] account for 70% of all san jose
[5:16:40] city trees. I urge you to
[5:16:43] reject this proposal. Thank
[5:16:47] you. Next speaker. >> hi. Thank
[5:16:56] you for listening to all of us.
[5:16:58] I just want to say that please
[5:17:00] reject this proposal. I believe
[5:17:03] this is going to destroy our
[5:17:05] neighborhoods and once it's
[5:17:06] done 30 years from now you
[5:17:09] can't go back and take all
[5:17:10] these buildings down and just
[5:17:12] go back to single family
[5:17:13] housing. Please reject this
[5:17:15] issue. I think it's a very
[5:17:18] important one for the city
[5:17:19] of san jose and I believe that
[5:17:21] this will just I can't
[5:17:22] emphasize enough. I think you
[5:17:24] will destroy our neighborhoods
[5:17:26] and I don't like to propose
[5:17:29] threats but I mean I think our
[5:17:32] next voting round I mean we're
[5:17:34] going to decide do >> we want
[5:17:37] people who want to bring these
[5:17:40] small apartments into our
[5:17:42] neighborhoods? I'm sorry. I
[5:17:44] don't agree with this at all.
[5:17:46] please say no. >> thank you.
[5:17:49] next speaker I also have
[5:17:51] ramachandran bala come on down.
[5:17:54] susan noda and veena >>
[5:17:57] ramachandran. Go ahead. Hi, I'm
[5:18:01] ed russo and I'm sorry for
[5:18:03] my voice but I just want to let
[5:18:06] you know I have lived in
[5:18:07] san jose my whole life. The
[5:18:09] community that we have built
[5:18:11] this city, the working together
[5:18:13] with neighbors and >> partners
[5:18:18] that we >> have in this city to
[5:18:19] destroy that would be
[5:18:22] unconscionable. We >> are a
[5:18:25] city that is a community no
[5:18:29] matter where you live. And to
[5:18:31] destroy that would be so sad.
[5:18:34] and once we destroy it, we
[5:18:36] can't go back. There's plenty
[5:18:39] of places in san jose where we
[5:18:41] can build high density housing.
[5:18:44] my husband worked >> for the
[5:18:45] vta for 35 years. I understand
[5:18:48] we need more housing there.
[5:18:50] vta. Why are we doing that? Why
[5:18:52] are we looking at places like
[5:18:55] abandoned commercial buildings?
[5:18:58] let's be prudent and save >>
[5:19:01] our lives. Thank you. Next
[5:19:04] speaker. Good evening. My name
[5:19:11] is baller and increasing
[5:19:13] density from 8 to 32 units per
[5:19:16] acre with three storey
[5:19:17] buildings will reverse or to
[5:19:20] our neighborhoods. Furthermore,
[5:19:22] the density will place an
[5:19:24] unsustainable burden on
[5:19:26] essential public services. Most
[5:19:29] concerning is the proposed
[5:19:31] ministerial approval process.
[5:19:34] there's three practical
[5:19:35] examples that I have seen. A
[5:19:37] neighbor of mine runs a hostel
[5:19:41] for traveling nurses at one
[5:19:42] point in time on a 5000ft² lot.
[5:19:45] I found 16 vehicles parked.
[5:19:48] another of my neighbors runs a
[5:19:50] rental car agency. A third and
[5:19:52] a fourth. They actually run a
[5:19:54] bar inside their garage. Now if
[5:19:57] we adopt this kind of a
[5:19:58] proposal, just imagine the
[5:20:00] consequences that it'll happen.
[5:20:02] people think commercial and
[5:20:04] this is what is going to cause
[5:20:06] damage to our community. I urge
[5:20:08] the city council to vote no.
[5:20:11] thank you. Next speaker alison
[5:20:14] single loni come on down linda
[5:20:17] geisha and ali >> victory. >>
[5:20:22] good evening. I'm veena
[5:20:24] ramachandran from various huh?
[5:20:26] I strongly opposed the zoning
[5:20:29] from single family home to
[5:20:30] multi >> zoning. Several
[5:20:32] residents of various high in
[5:20:34] san jose >> have worked hard
[5:20:35] all their lives to buy a single
[5:20:37] family >> home. Several people
[5:20:39] have moved from other crowded
[5:20:41] cities nearby to come and live
[5:20:43] in san jose because of the
[5:20:45] present single family homes and
[5:20:47] the large sites. Demolishing
[5:20:50] single family homes destroys an
[5:20:52] entire neighborhood. Also the
[5:20:55] wave of unnecessary
[5:20:56] requirements like garages and
[5:20:58] entrances puts pressure on
[5:21:00] neighbors. And there'll be
[5:21:03] fights and disputes. There'll
[5:21:06] be an increase in crime. And
[5:21:08] most important, what no one is
[5:21:10] mentioning is that land sharks
[5:21:11] will move in. If I have two
[5:21:13] multi-story buildings on either
[5:21:15] side of me I'm a very easy prey
[5:21:17] and I'll be forced out. And >>
[5:21:19] this is not what I bought a
[5:21:21] house in san jose for. So
[5:21:23] please oppose this. Thank you.
[5:21:27] next speaker kris justin. Come
[5:21:29] on down. Bart wilner and
[5:21:31] benjamin white. Good evening,
[5:21:34] alison single lani, director
[5:21:35] of policy with s.v. At home and
[5:21:36] a longtime d5 resident. We
[5:21:39] support the planning
[5:21:40] commission's recommendation to
[5:21:41] increase residential
[5:21:42] neighborhood densities to 32
[5:21:44] units per acre. To support the
[5:21:46] development of middle income
[5:21:47] housing, this can help create
[5:21:49] much needed more affordable
[5:21:50] homes in san jose. Make street
[5:21:53] smart strategic use of our
[5:21:54] existing infrastructure and
[5:21:56] reduce greenhouse gas emissions
[5:21:57] by letting people live closer
[5:21:59] to where they work. We
[5:22:00] encourage council to take this
[5:22:02] necessary step in compliance
[5:22:03] with the city's adopted housing
[5:22:05] element from the teeth,
[5:22:06] tordillos and committee memo we
[5:22:07] support increased height limits
[5:22:09] for middle housing surrounding
[5:22:10] transit areas. From the mayor's
[5:22:12] brown act memo we support the
[5:22:13] recommendations related to
[5:22:14] pickup lands from the candela
[5:22:17] ortiz mulcahey memo. We support
[5:22:18] a streamlined process and lower
[5:22:20] fee structure for special use
[5:22:21] permits for communities serving
[5:22:23] users on pickup land. We oppose
[5:22:26] adding new parking requirements
[5:22:27] to development or exempting
[5:22:29] parts of the city from middle
[5:22:30] income development. You can
[5:22:32] live >> in a vibrant city
[5:22:33] that's growing or >> thank you
[5:22:38] >> that your time next speaker.
[5:22:40] >> linda gautier district
[5:22:44] district nine for 46 years
[5:22:46] esteemed mayor council members
[5:22:48] as an elected official I'm
[5:22:50] accustomed to dense official
[5:22:51] language but please create
[5:22:53] executive summaries for these
[5:22:54] proposals that are bullet
[5:22:55] pointed and in plain english
[5:22:56] for the layperson homeowner who
[5:22:58] wants to know what 100 words or
[5:23:00] less what it means for him or
[5:23:01] her? Personally I'd like to say
[5:23:03] that I'm tired of the pit
[5:23:05] of the popular view that
[5:23:07] my neighbors and I are selfish
[5:23:08] privileged snobs. My cambrian
[5:23:11] home I bought out could only
[5:23:13] squeak into my cambrian home in
[5:23:14] 1980 because it had a 60 cubic
[5:23:16] foot hole for a planned
[5:23:17] swimming pool in the backyard.
[5:23:19] I couldn't afford to have it
[5:23:20] filled so for two years I
[5:23:21] got free pool dirt dumped in
[5:23:23] front of the house and used a
[5:23:24] wheelbarrow to get it in the
[5:23:25] hole. My salary at that time
[5:23:28] was under 12 a year and I
[5:23:29] worked multiple jobs for a long
[5:23:30] time. I refinanced to send a
[5:23:32] son to college and again to
[5:23:34] help his family buy a house
[5:23:35] of their own. I live on a tight
[5:23:37] budget in the house so many
[5:23:38] seem to resent me having I made
[5:23:41] this investment under a set
[5:23:42] of rules that I had every
[5:23:43] reason to expect would not.
[5:23:46] thank you that your time? Next
[5:23:48] speaker. Ali superman come on
[5:23:51] down and down. Oh, hello. Ali
[5:23:56] victory in district seven and I
[5:23:59] discovered I'm in the missing
[5:24:01] middle for 45 years my husband
[5:24:04] and I raised our family in high
[5:24:07] density home. We have a
[5:24:08] townhome across the street are
[5:24:11] duplexes a half mile away >> or
[5:24:15] apartment complexes and right
[5:24:17] next door single family homes.
[5:24:19] it's a neighborhood that works.
[5:24:22] it does have issues. Parking is
[5:24:26] one for 45 years we've had
[5:24:28] issues with parking. So this
[5:24:31] plan I support but I am really
[5:24:35] glad to see the memorandums
[5:24:38] that are looking to direct the
[5:24:40] staff in a reasonable way.
[5:24:43] thank you. Thank you. Next
[5:24:46] speaker hi my name is chris
[5:24:50] justine my wife and I have a
[5:24:52] house in willow glen. We all >>
[5:24:54] want housing to be more
[5:24:55] available and more affordable
[5:24:57] but more density, more
[5:24:58] affordable housing are not the
[5:24:59] same thing. Increasing
[5:25:01] neighborhood density is only
[5:25:02] one possible tool. Tax policy
[5:25:05] incentives >> regulatory
[5:25:07] reform, development costs and
[5:25:08] other approaches can also
[5:25:10] affect housing availability >>
[5:25:11] and affordability. Yet we >>
[5:25:13] are considering changes that
[5:25:14] could increase residential
[5:25:16] neighborhood density from eight
[5:25:18] to as much as 32 units an acre
[5:25:20] allow three storey development
[5:25:22] and use ministerial approvals.
[5:25:24] your own memoranda show that
[5:25:26] the answers aren't settled >>
[5:25:27] here. That's why I support
[5:25:29] councilmember jones request for
[5:25:30] a four week deferral and
[5:25:32] dedicated >> public meeting for
[5:25:34] weeks as a small price to pay
[5:25:36] for better public understanding
[5:25:37] of a policy that could
[5:25:39] permanently affect san jose's
[5:25:40] established neighborhoods.
[5:25:42] don't make the policy outrun
[5:25:44] the evidence. Give the public
[5:25:46] the four weeks to study the
[5:25:47] alternatives. Then we can make
[5:25:49] an informed decision. >> I bart
[5:25:57] wilner district six for 48
[5:25:59] years state bill 79 is a
[5:26:07] mandate. It's the law. We have
[5:26:08] to follow it. What you're all
[5:26:10] trying to do now is strictly a
[5:26:13] discretionary decision. It has
[5:26:15] nothing to do with the law. It
[5:26:17] is not a mandate. You only
[5:26:18] mandate is to the voters that
[5:26:19] put you in office. Right now we
[5:26:22] shouldn't be looking
[5:26:25] at increasing what the state
[5:26:27] of california is asking for. We
[5:26:28] should be looking at how we can
[5:26:30] fulfill what the state
[5:26:31] of california is asking for.
[5:26:32] follow the law. Do it for a few
[5:26:35] years. Reevaluate see what how
[5:26:37] it works out and then may
[5:26:39] changes as necessary. We're
[5:26:41] putting a horse in front of the
[5:26:42] cart. It's ridiculous right
[5:26:44] now. Your your emphasis should
[5:26:47] be seeing >> how google is
[5:26:48] going to build the 5900 units
[5:26:51] 25% of them affordable housing
[5:26:53] that they promised us and it's
[5:26:55] now going to be probably in the
[5:26:56] mid 2030s before they even
[5:26:58] break ground. Come on, let's do
[5:27:00] the job. Thank you. That your
[5:27:01] time? Thank you. I'm bill
[5:27:03] moline. Come on down steve
[5:27:05] ling, robert wood and mary
[5:27:07] pizzo. Hello. My name is
[5:27:13] benjamin white. I live in the
[5:27:16] winchester corridor
[5:27:17] neighborhood. >> I think that
[5:27:20] the fourfold increase in
[5:27:23] residential zoning density that
[5:27:25] is proposed is extreme for that
[5:27:28] neighborhood. I also >> think
[5:27:31] that rezoning property ease in
[5:27:36] this and any parcel in this
[5:27:38] residential neighborhood to
[5:27:41] urban residential is also
[5:27:43] inappropriate for a residential
[5:27:46] neighborhood like this. And I
[5:27:49] also want to say that I do
[5:27:52] support the memo that
[5:27:55] councilmember mulcahy
[5:27:56] coauthored. I think that is a
[5:27:59] reasonable proposal, a step in
[5:28:02] the right direction. Thank you.
[5:28:04] >> thank you. Next speaker.
[5:28:11] thank you. I'm bill wolf and I
[5:28:15] think this is a great proposal.
[5:28:17] for any city with a subway
[5:28:20] system because with the subway
[5:28:23] system people can just ride to
[5:28:24] work and they're fine. But if
[5:28:28] you don't have a subway system,
[5:28:30] people might need cars and they
[5:28:32] might need to park their car
[5:28:34] both at work and at home. So
[5:28:37] please vote against this idea
[5:28:40] and as an incentive I'll give
[5:28:42] up the rest of my time. Thank
[5:28:45] you. Next speaker I ali
[5:28:53] superman on behalf of the
[5:28:54] housing action coalition and as
[5:28:56] a downtown resident I urge you
[5:28:58] to accept staff's winchester
[5:28:59] boulevard compromise. Please
[5:29:01] don't limit the corridor to
[5:29:02] townhomes only and don't carve
[5:29:03] out parcels 8 to 6 winchester
[5:29:05] hersh special treatment because
[5:29:07] every site shares the same
[5:29:08] characteristics. On missing
[5:29:10] middle housing please adopt
[5:29:11] at least 40 dwelling units per
[5:29:13] acre as task force members have
[5:29:15] called for berkeley's program
[5:29:16] goes further at 17 if berkeley
[5:29:18] can do it, a much larger city
[5:29:20] like san jose can too. Density
[5:29:22] must be high enough to make
[5:29:23] math work. I also support the
[5:29:24] councilmembers tordillos and
[5:29:26] may's memo. I encourage a
[5:29:28] predictable ministerial
[5:29:29] approval process with clear
[5:29:30] objectives standards and
[5:29:31] defined review timelines.
[5:29:33] please maintain the city's
[5:29:35] commitment to eliminate parking
[5:29:36] minimums. We committed to
[5:29:38] things in the housing element
[5:29:39] and we don't need to
[5:29:40] relitigate. We must implement a
[5:29:42] program that maintains the
[5:29:44] city's housing element
[5:29:45] commitments falling short risk,
[5:29:46] decertification and loss
[5:29:48] of local land control. Thank >>
[5:29:49] you. >> thank you. Next
[5:29:51] speaker. >> hello, my name is
[5:29:56] steve leng. I'm present of the
[5:29:58] strawberry park neighborhood
[5:29:59] association in district one.
[5:30:02] I'm also former former chairman
[5:30:05] of the district one leadership
[5:30:06] group. Thanks for the
[5:30:08] opportunity to speak. I'll be
[5:30:09] brief in the if the motivation
[5:30:11] for up zoning in the proposed
[5:30:13] framework is to meet the state
[5:30:15] mandate of 62,200 new housing
[5:30:18] units by 2031 for the regional
[5:30:20] housing needs allocation. I
[5:30:22] believe there are less dramatic
[5:30:24] ways to get this done.
[5:30:27] specifically I'm referring to
[5:30:29] the quadrupling of the single
[5:30:31] family density limits from 8 to
[5:30:33] 32 units per acre across the
[5:30:36] entire city. Please vote no on
[5:30:39] this proposal. Hold your
[5:30:40] planning staff and neighborhood
[5:30:43] leaders like me accountable to
[5:30:45] go come up with a better plan.
[5:30:47] thank you. Thank you. Next
[5:30:50] speaker >> after this speaker
[5:30:53] I'm going to call five names
[5:30:55] online. Just so you know, I
[5:30:57] have about six cards left in
[5:31:00] person and 20 >> hands online.
[5:31:02] go ahead. >> good evening.
[5:31:04] my name is mary peet. So I have
[5:31:06] lived in san jose almost all
[5:31:08] of my life and I would like not
[5:31:11] only the council >> but also
[5:31:13] the planners >> to look at the
[5:31:15] items that were detailed by the
[5:31:17] district six leadership group
[5:31:20] because we believe in growth,
[5:31:22] we understand we live in a city
[5:31:23] that needs to grow but we also
[5:31:25] believe that some of the path
[5:31:27] decisions have proven to be
[5:31:29] inaccurate and some of the new
[5:31:31] guidelines that you're
[5:31:32] proposing are way too generous
[5:31:35] for develop buyers and really
[5:31:38] don't address the neighbors who
[5:31:40] come to these meetings to talk
[5:31:42] with other neighbors who really
[5:31:44] want you to respect the fact
[5:31:46] that we also know our
[5:31:47] neighborhood and what's worked
[5:31:49] and what hasn't worked. Thank
[5:31:51] you. >> alright I'm going to
[5:31:54] go to sheila and then followed
[5:31:56] by m.l. And tamisha. Jordan
[5:31:58] moldau and tate. Okay. My name
[5:32:02] is sheila. Okay. I'm an
[5:32:03] associate broker with bmg. I
[5:32:05] think two things are essential.
[5:32:08] I don't agree with the proposal
[5:32:10] because it doesn't meet the
[5:32:11] needs of the city or the
[5:32:12] community but more importantly
[5:32:15] any developer who's making a
[5:32:17] ton of money by giving you 1 or
[5:32:20] 2 housing that is subsidized as
[5:32:24] opposed to full tilt money is a
[5:32:28] violation of our rights as
[5:32:30] citizens to give our hard
[5:32:32] earned money and interest to
[5:32:34] them. So I'm opposed to that.
[5:32:36] I'm also opposed to if you're
[5:32:38] going to build why don't you
[5:32:40] just build underground
[5:32:42] permanently just the way you
[5:32:44] need to do to make sure
[5:32:45] everybody in that building has
[5:32:47] a place to go. Now that makes
[5:32:50] no impact on the community
[5:32:52] of the people you're going to
[5:32:53] damage anyway. If you
[5:32:55] go through with it. And third,
[5:32:57] if you're going to get the
[5:32:59] developers to give your money
[5:33:02] to m.l. >> followed by an
[5:33:05] tamisha I am very concerned
[5:33:09] that data centers are not
[5:33:10] included as a study topic and
[5:33:12] this work plan for your four
[5:33:13] year review of the general plan
[5:33:14] for 2047 would need to be
[5:33:17] studied as part of the general
[5:33:18] plan. There are currently 34
[5:33:19] approved and pending data
[5:33:20] center projects in san jose. A
[5:33:22] lot of them are district two
[5:33:23] where there is no recycled
[5:33:25] water. These data centers
[5:33:26] directly steal freshwater
[5:33:27] resources away from human
[5:33:29] beings and wildlife in the
[5:33:30] city. We need water not data to
[5:33:32] survive. We already live in a
[5:33:33] very drought prone area. The
[5:33:35] u.n. Has declared that we are
[5:33:36] now in an era of water being
[5:33:38] added as of this year. So we
[5:33:40] will surely see a drought again
[5:33:41] in this area. Water consumption
[5:33:43] needs to be human consumption
[5:33:45] needs to be prioritized. Noise
[5:33:47] pollution energy needs hazards
[5:33:48] to human and wildlife health
[5:33:50] are also very serious concerns
[5:33:51] that I don't have time to speak
[5:33:53] on. Data centers need to be
[5:33:54] studied as part of this general
[5:33:56] plan. Please reject this
[5:33:57] proposal. The >> mischa
[5:34:01] followed by jordan mayor >> may
[5:34:05] hand council members and west
[5:34:06] tennessee resident and a member
[5:34:08] of I love san jose.org
[5:34:09] coalition of over 3000
[5:34:11] organized residents. My family
[5:34:12] lives less than a mile from the
[5:34:14] prologis proposed 99 megawatt
[5:34:17] data center today. Residents
[5:34:18] spoke against rezoning ibm
[5:34:20] almaden for data centers. You
[5:34:21] voted 9 to 2 to approve it
[5:34:23] anyway. No cumulative impact
[5:34:25] analysis, no standard city
[5:34:26] staff confirm this is analysis
[5:34:28] doesn't currently exist. We
[5:34:30] already have equinox operating
[5:34:32] nearby stack infrastructure's
[5:34:33] 100mw pending for a lot for a
[5:34:36] allergist's with 396mw plant
[5:34:39] yet there's no analysis
[5:34:40] of whether our neighborhoods
[5:34:41] can serve this combined load
[5:34:43] of water consumption and
[5:34:44] pollution. Residents near
[5:34:46] betty's facility in mansfield,
[5:34:48] georgia can no longer drink
[5:34:49] their water. We won't let that
[5:34:51] happen here. Your vote today
[5:34:52] proved we need binding
[5:34:54] standards before approvals, not
[5:34:57] after I'm asking you to commit
[5:34:58] now require conditional use
[5:34:59] permit instead of special use
[5:35:01] permits for data centers,
[5:35:02] mandate cumulative impact
[5:35:03] analysis and apply new
[5:35:04] standards or draft >> jordan
[5:35:07] followed by >> tate. Hi this is
[5:35:10] jordan muldowney d through
[5:35:12] resident thank you to council
[5:35:13] members toward ios and comté
[5:35:15] and the city staff for their
[5:35:16] memos that demonstrate forward
[5:35:17] thinking leadership on land
[5:35:19] use. I live in a ten year old
[5:35:21] apartment building in
[5:35:22] japantown. My neighbors and I
[5:35:24] contribute to the neighborhood,
[5:35:25] participate in neighborhood
[5:35:27] groups, walk or dogs pay taxes.
[5:35:30] we're not bogeymen. We live
[5:35:32] peacefully with our home owning
[5:35:33] neighbors. Our apartment our
[5:35:35] apartment was built with
[5:35:37] parking minimums. The parking
[5:35:39] is never close to full.
[5:35:41] families have many different
[5:35:43] shapes and sizes and many
[5:35:44] different transportation needs.
[5:35:46] setting parking minimums are
[5:35:47] unlikely to be too low but
[5:35:49] they're extremely likely to be
[5:35:50] too high. The staff report
[5:35:52] studied parking and determined
[5:35:54] that developers are still
[5:35:55] building it. We shouldn't be
[5:35:56] making policy based on failed
[5:35:58] pseudoscience. Please reject
[5:36:00] parking minimums and the
[5:36:01] negatives that they bring. I
[5:36:03] also support communities
[5:36:04] serving in residential areas
[5:36:06] and pickup zones as as talked
[5:36:08] about in huge council memos >>
[5:36:11] came before a unmute taped I'm
[5:36:13] going to call names of people
[5:36:16] in the room. Lina or liana
[5:36:19] olive lindy hayes, greg
[5:36:23] carlson, jeff pedulla and bill
[5:36:27] wolfe come on down >> and taped
[5:36:31] over to you. >> hello, I'm
[5:36:38] kate. I'm a homeowner in d10.
[5:36:40] I've lived here for about six
[5:36:41] years and I for one would
[5:36:42] welcome new neighbors and
[5:36:43] strongly support that missing
[5:36:45] middle proposal. I think we
[5:36:47] need at least three units
[5:36:48] probably probably more. As
[5:36:50] someone else pointed out to
[5:36:51] me to meet our housing goals.
[5:36:52] we don't need things like
[5:36:53] parking minimums. We can leave
[5:36:54] that up to individual sites to
[5:36:55] determine and they just add
[5:36:56] cost proposals. And please
[5:36:59] think of all the young families
[5:37:02] who aren't there tonight and
[5:37:03] can't express their voices and
[5:37:05] really need affordable housing
[5:37:07] in san jose. Thank you >> mayor
[5:37:12] mehan. Council members >>
[5:37:16] my name is liana all of I'm a
[5:37:17] resident and a member
[5:37:18] of concern corry neighborhood.
[5:37:20] I would like to thank the
[5:37:22] council members conduct
[5:37:24] countless and also ortiz and
[5:37:30] especially our district six
[5:37:33] councilmember malcolm mccarthy
[5:37:34] for listening to our concerns
[5:37:36] on the rezoning of the north
[5:37:37] winchester corridor and ferris
[5:37:39] forest avenue. The designations
[5:37:41] of mulan on winchester with
[5:37:43] forest to remain ryan and cc
[5:37:46] will not only provide for
[5:37:47] additional housing but will
[5:37:48] also preserved small businesses
[5:37:50] that generate greater tax
[5:37:51] revenue and put less strain on
[5:37:53] multiple services. Any other
[5:37:56] zoning will have a negative
[5:37:57] impact on the traffic safety,
[5:37:59] parking and integrity of the
[5:38:01] neighborhood and impact the
[5:38:02] ability of these businesses to
[5:38:04] survive. I would also urge you
[5:38:06] to reject the missing middle
[5:38:08] housing and continue to develop
[5:38:10] land as designated in the 2040
[5:38:13] >> general plan. >> thank you
[5:38:14] that your time next speaker
[5:38:16] christy. Right. Come on down,
[5:38:18] sam kurtzman worksman and
[5:38:22] sandra delavan. Go ahead. >>
[5:38:25] I'm linda hayes from concern
[5:38:26] corrie neighbors. There are two
[5:38:29] issues where we disagree with
[5:38:30] the planning department staff.
[5:38:32] the winchester corridor and
[5:38:35] identification of residential
[5:38:36] neighborhoods for the
[5:38:38] winchester corridor. We embrace
[5:38:40] the recommendations of our
[5:38:42] councilmember michael mulcahy
[5:38:45] to preserve the profitable
[5:38:47] small businesses along for us
[5:38:50] and to rezone as a mixed use
[5:38:53] neighborhood properties along
[5:38:55] winchester to permit housing.
[5:38:58] council member mulcahy's
[5:39:00] solution is better for our
[5:39:02] neighborhood and recognizes the
[5:39:05] housing needs of the city. I am
[5:39:09] thrilled for the densification
[5:39:13] issue. We think it is
[5:39:14] haphazard. Once it is done it
[5:39:17] cannot be undone. If the
[5:39:20] council has a compromise to
[5:39:22] propose we would very much like
[5:39:24] to hear it. Thank you. >> thank
[5:39:26] you. Next speaker. My name is
[5:39:33] greg carlson and I'm with
[5:39:35] concern corey neighbors. And
[5:39:37] this is an important moment not
[5:39:38] just in the winchester corridor
[5:39:40] in san jose but perhaps beyond.
[5:39:43] these are your concerns. Once
[5:39:45] sometime back you asked us to
[5:39:47] give you our votes to allow you
[5:39:49] to be sitting here today to
[5:39:50] represent our neighborhoods and
[5:39:52] to protect the safety and
[5:39:53] integrity of our neighborhoods
[5:39:54] and small businesses. Now is
[5:39:57] the time that we come to you to
[5:39:58] confirm that we the voters made
[5:40:00] the right decision. We asked
[5:40:02] you to protect the safety and
[5:40:03] integrity of our neighborhoods.
[5:40:05] we asked you to support our
[5:40:06] councilmember michael mulcahy's
[5:40:08] recommendation to not changing
[5:40:10] the forest avenue zoning and no
[5:40:13] more than mixed use residential
[5:40:14] on the designated parcels along
[5:40:16] the winchester corridor.
[5:40:18] including 826 north winchester.
[5:40:21] how much time do I have to
[5:40:23] build a vibrant downtown and
[5:40:26] put up two high rises around
[5:40:28] downtown? Perfect. Thank you.
[5:40:31] >> thank you. Next speaker.
[5:40:34] marni, come on down. And ken >>
[5:40:38] hillman. I'm jeff temple. I'm
[5:40:41] approaching this from a
[5:40:42] different angle. I submitted a
[5:40:47] legal ethics complaint to two
[5:40:50] projects in college park.
[5:40:54] applicable laws and procedures
[5:40:56] weren't followed. Then this is
[5:41:00] the 2012 emery street land
[5:41:03] deal. The pedestrian easement
[5:41:06] exists as a cloud on the title
[5:41:09] and the date of the recorded
[5:41:10] deed I saw was december 17th,
[5:41:14] 2012 but the matter was heard
[5:41:17] and passed by the council on
[5:41:19] the 18th. Thank you. >> thank
[5:41:24] you. Next speaker I >> urge you
[5:41:26] to vote no. The problem with
[5:41:28] this is the blanket approval to
[5:41:31] build high density housing on
[5:41:33] any residential lot. It doesn't
[5:41:36] make sense. My name is kristi
[5:41:38] wright and I moved to san jose
[5:41:39] 30 years ago because I found a
[5:41:41] neighborhood that has
[5:41:43] character. It feels safe. It's
[5:41:46] quiet at night. It has ample
[5:41:48] parking. There are front yards
[5:41:50] and backyards for the kids to
[5:41:52] play in. High density housing
[5:41:55] built right in the middle of a
[5:41:56] quiet block changes the fabric
[5:41:59] of the street and that
[5:42:00] neighborhood. I seriously doubt
[5:42:02] that any of you council members
[5:42:04] would like a high density unit
[5:42:06] built right next to your house.
[5:42:08] we need more housing to let's
[5:42:10] put it along the transit
[5:42:11] corridors like the award
[5:42:12] winning envision san jose 2040
[5:42:16] plan. There is a lot of space
[5:42:19] in san jose. Let's build where
[5:42:21] it makes sense. I also object
[5:42:23] to the lack of public input on
[5:42:26] this rezoning. Thank you that
[5:42:29] >> your time next speaker. Nick
[5:42:32] cochran come on down. I'm here
[5:42:36] >> today speaking as a board
[5:42:38] member of families and homes
[5:42:40] san jose at 100% volunteer
[5:42:44] locally based city grass >> a
[5:42:48] city wide grass neighborhood or
[5:42:50] group directly representing
[5:42:52] san jose residents and voters.
[5:42:54] I'm standing up here alone but
[5:42:56] others stand with me. I am
[5:42:58] presenting a petition titian
[5:43:00] signed by 4244 san jose
[5:43:03] residents. So I am actually
[5:43:05] speaking for those residents
[5:43:07] and more. We oppose the missing
[5:43:09] middle recommendation from the
[5:43:11] planning commission and staff.
[5:43:13] the following is my personal
[5:43:14] comment. We are here today
[5:43:16] because of decisions and votes
[5:43:18] made by 22 and 2023 by the city
[5:43:21] council and staff then who
[5:43:23] worked on the housing element.
[5:43:25] you were responsible for the
[5:43:27] situation today. Fix your
[5:43:30] error. Do not tell us you
[5:43:32] can't. You got us here. Please
[5:43:34] get us out of here. Thank you.
[5:43:37] thank you. That your time? Next
[5:43:41] speaker. >> I strongly support
[5:43:46] the memorandum from
[5:43:47] councilmember baltimore katie
[5:43:48] ortiz and has the >> compromise
[5:43:51] to replace all of the proposed
[5:43:53] user zoning with m1 along with
[5:43:54] the preservation of our and
[5:43:56] along the forest avenue is what
[5:43:57] makes sense for the winchester
[5:43:58] corridor. I have attended
[5:44:00] almost all of the general plan
[5:44:02] for review meetings and
[5:44:03] appreciate that the task force
[5:44:04] members did not support the
[5:44:06] staff's recommendation for u r
[5:44:08] and held multiple votes and
[5:44:09] also countered with proposals
[5:44:11] of m1 zoning in place of u r.
[5:44:14] corey residents understand that
[5:44:15] more housing is needed but u r
[5:44:16] zoning would not create housing
[5:44:18] that would actually benefit the
[5:44:19] potential new residents and
[5:44:21] would severely negatively
[5:44:22] impact the current ones. The
[5:44:23] already terrible traffic would
[5:44:24] be awful and further the lack
[5:44:26] of any parking mandate would be
[5:44:27] devastating to an area already
[5:44:28] impacted by overflow parking
[5:44:30] from valley fair that has been
[5:44:31] exacerbated since the increase
[5:44:33] the parking fees there area is
[5:44:35] not at all appropriate for u r
[5:44:36] zoning m u n zoning along the
[5:44:37] winchester boulevard and
[5:44:38] preserving r and along forest
[5:44:40] avenue is a reasonable
[5:44:41] compromise. Thank you. Thank
[5:44:44] you. Next >> speaker kooser jr
[5:44:46] woods come on down daisy mendez
[5:44:48] and julie finn harris. >>
[5:44:51] go ahead. We were here in june
[5:44:53] 2025 talking about 17 and 15
[5:44:56] story project zoning change
[5:44:58] at 826 north winchester with
[5:45:00] overwhelming opposition from
[5:45:02] the community the council
[5:45:04] thankfully denied. Now we are
[5:45:06] back again talking about
[5:45:08] rezoning multiple lots on the
[5:45:09] winchester corridor. I'm
[5:45:10] shocked that winchester
[5:45:11] boulevard is being targeted
[5:45:13] again given many members of the
[5:45:15] planning task force question
[5:45:17] why I would request that the
[5:45:19] issues of the densification
[5:45:21] of residential neighborhoods
[5:45:22] and the winchester corridor
[5:45:24] rezoning be considered
[5:45:26] separately. This would be
[5:45:28] similar to the action at the
[5:45:29] planning commission task force
[5:45:31] where the commissioners pulled
[5:45:32] out these two issues for
[5:45:34] discussion and had divided vote
[5:45:36] on the winchester corridor.
[5:45:38] unfortunately the planning
[5:45:39] director didn't spend any time
[5:45:41] explaining to the council the
[5:45:43] winchester corridor rezoning
[5:45:46] don't break the promise to this
[5:45:47] and as a neighborhoods don't
[5:45:49] go forward with the planning
[5:45:50] department's proposal, don't
[5:45:52] let. >> thank you that your
[5:45:55] time next speaker. Good
[5:46:04] evening. I live in 83 san jose.
[5:46:07] it's made up of distinct
[5:46:09] neighborhoods and this proposal
[5:46:10] can irreparably change and
[5:46:12] possibly destroy them. It will
[5:46:14] certainly negatively impact
[5:46:16] livability. A large influx
[5:46:18] of new residents will make the
[5:46:19] city even less habitable
[5:46:21] without more certainty, without
[5:46:23] more services and resources
[5:46:25] which you can't provide. Under
[5:46:27] this proposal neighbors will
[5:46:29] lose their ability to have
[5:46:31] input on future projects with
[5:46:33] only ministerial review and no
[5:46:35] subjective design requirements.
[5:46:37] historic call and preservation
[5:46:39] conservation districts which
[5:46:41] should be protected can be
[5:46:43] changed beyond recognition. I
[5:46:45] understand that the state is
[5:46:46] mandating many changes which
[5:46:49] san jose needs to comply with
[5:46:50] why the city is proposing to
[5:46:52] make even more draconian
[5:46:53] changes is frankly beyond
[5:46:55] my comprehension. You are
[5:46:56] making the current residents
[5:46:58] of the city plant part of a
[5:46:59] zoning experiment that will
[5:47:01] have unintended consequences.
[5:47:03] I'm just >> going. >> thank
[5:47:09] you. Next speaker roberta moore
[5:47:10] come on down rush patel and
[5:47:12] john leave it. Good evening.
[5:47:16] during the 45 years I've lived
[5:47:18] in san jose there have been
[5:47:19] city council decisions which I
[5:47:22] have not agreed but have always
[5:47:24] been able to understand and if
[5:47:26] not appreciate opposing points
[5:47:28] of view at least until now. The
[5:47:31] planning commission's recent 9
[5:47:33] to 2 decision to effectively
[5:47:35] nullify the envisioned san jose
[5:47:38] 2040 plan I recommending
[5:47:40] dramatic up zoning uniformly
[5:47:42] across all residential
[5:47:44] neighborhoods is misguided and
[5:47:47] in my view a complete
[5:47:48] abdication of the dissenting
[5:47:51] commissioners overall duty and
[5:47:53] responsibility to the citizens
[5:47:55] of san jose. Quite frankly I am
[5:47:58] done dumbfounded at finding
[5:48:01] myself in the position
[5:48:03] of having to vehemently voice
[5:48:05] subjection to this vacuous
[5:48:06] policy recommendation. I don't
[5:48:09] recall carmen since being given
[5:48:11] a leave of absence. I trust
[5:48:14] that common sense will thank >>
[5:48:16] you that your time next
[5:48:18] speaker. Carol last name I
[5:48:22] think heffley. Come on down,
[5:48:24] chandler three hand and sam.
[5:48:29] go ahead. >> while the city has
[5:48:31] the authority to rezone and
[5:48:34] pass ordinances a single family
[5:48:37] lot with existing deed
[5:48:40] restrictions cannot be made
[5:48:44] null and void by these actions.
[5:48:48] the enforcement of deed
[5:48:50] restrictions is a civil court
[5:48:53] >> matter between private
[5:48:56] properties parties. Excuse
[5:48:59] me >>. Our neighborhoods will
[5:49:01] actively defend to our
[5:49:03] restrictions of one residential
[5:49:06] unit per lot in court against
[5:49:10] any and all development on our
[5:49:13] deed restricted single family
[5:49:17] >> lots. Obviously I oppose >>
[5:49:20] this. I'd like to thank the
[5:49:21] building and these guys for
[5:49:23] showing chuckie cheese and the
[5:49:25] first slide. That is six more
[5:49:29] stories >> to go. >> thank you
[5:49:32] that your time. Next speaker.
[5:49:37] >> hi there. I'm judy finn
[5:49:40] harris. I live in cary and I'm
[5:49:42] a renter and I've been laid off
[5:49:45] and >> I am really still hoping
[5:49:48] to make san jose my home to put
[5:49:51] down roots here, maybe invite
[5:49:52] >> my son and his girlfriend as
[5:49:54] they hope to build. Well, we're
[5:49:56] not saying what they're hoping
[5:49:57] to build yet >> but one thing
[5:50:00] that really it's so special
[5:50:02] about san jose is the diverse
[5:50:05] >> and distinct neighborhoods.
[5:50:08] each one has their own
[5:50:09] characteristics and that's the
[5:50:12] result of years of careful
[5:50:14] planning, thoughtful
[5:50:15] consideration done hand-in-hand
[5:50:18] with our community >> members.
[5:50:21] so I urge the council to please
[5:50:23] make sure that there's enough
[5:50:24] time to do this to make the
[5:50:27] thoughtful decisions that won't
[5:50:29] negatively impact our
[5:50:30] neighborhoods by rushing
[5:50:33] something >> and to preserve
[5:50:34] that character. And yes, I
[5:50:35] support our district. Markey's
[5:50:39] proposal. Thank you. >> can you
[5:50:47] hear me? Yes. About two weeks
[5:50:50] >> ago I came to the planning
[5:50:51] group and I asked her hearing
[5:50:53] about data centers and that's
[5:50:55] coming up. I very strongly
[5:50:57] recommend you put data centers
[5:50:59] high on the list of things to
[5:51:00] add to your generic general
[5:51:02] plan. You wisely called for a
[5:51:04] meeting tomorrow night. You'll
[5:51:05] hear more about it. Then on
[5:51:07] residential that issue also
[5:51:10] covers water power and open
[5:51:13] space. And I ask you to
[5:51:14] recommend that you spend some
[5:51:16] time looking at the ibm
[5:51:19] property because you're going
[5:51:20] to need open space for more
[5:51:22] people living here. You don't
[5:51:24] want the power being taken from
[5:51:26] the people to raise the price
[5:51:27] of power to the people that
[5:51:28] live in our houses here. You
[5:51:30] should use the power you
[5:51:32] got from manufacturing and keep
[5:51:34] the prices down as low as you
[5:51:36] can. And number three like some
[5:51:38] company like ours like green
[5:51:40] cloud it's not good to use
[5:51:42] water in a data center. I
[5:51:44] really respect what you're
[5:51:45] doing. You've got to bury thank
[5:51:46] god and keep it up. Thank you.
[5:51:49] next speaker roberto moore
[5:51:56] housing commission speaking
[5:51:58] personally. Miss information is
[5:52:00] driving >> this proposal since
[5:52:03] 2000 >> 15 h c d decertified >>
[5:52:07] seven city e's and fined two
[5:52:10] one and they were all for very
[5:52:13] serious violations >> despite
[5:52:16] verbal conversations not one
[5:52:19] involved council rejecting >> a
[5:52:21] density proposal not one. This
[5:52:26] proposal >> will undermined >>
[5:52:29] our city's preservation goals.
[5:52:34] barriers to affordable housing
[5:52:36] are >> financing and costs, not
[5:52:39] density and land. How did staff
[5:52:43] get this so >> wrong? Garbage
[5:52:46] in, garbage out require >>
[5:52:49] staff to separate legal
[5:52:50] mandates from discretionary
[5:52:52] choices measure the impact and
[5:52:55] >> thank you that your time. A
[5:52:59] meal jack and ah. Come on down.
[5:53:03] kelly macdonagh >> and gerry
[5:53:06] giles. >> good evening. My name
[5:53:09] is sam district nine and me a
[5:53:12] vice mayor and the city
[5:53:14] council. Thank you for your
[5:53:15] leadership. I know you care
[5:53:16] about this city and make the
[5:53:18] best decisions. We ask you to
[5:53:21] keep >> the promise. The
[5:53:23] promise is what make america >>
[5:53:25] america. We love countries that
[5:53:28] have law of the jungle. They
[5:53:30] make laws along the way and
[5:53:31] they mess up quantities of life
[5:53:33] of people and people live. I
[5:53:34] left there for 50 years. I
[5:53:36] never come back to that
[5:53:38] communist country today let us
[5:53:41] honor >> that. When people
[5:53:42] choose a single housing they
[5:53:44] choose single housing. When
[5:53:46] they choose a community where
[5:53:48] their the kids go to the
[5:53:49] certain schools they want to
[5:53:51] go to those schools. Let's not
[5:53:53] mess up that community. Let's
[5:53:54] not put density where it
[5:53:56] belongs to a place where there
[5:53:58] are works. So please honor >>
[5:54:01] that promise. Help them to keep
[5:54:02] their promise and we ask you to
[5:54:04] keep the promise that keep
[5:54:06] single housing single housing.
[5:54:08] >> next speaker I'm jonathan
[5:54:17] and I have lived >> in san jose
[5:54:19] for almost 43 years and I like
[5:54:23] the neighborhood I live in. In
[5:54:25] fact most of my neighbors have
[5:54:27] lived around us are almost 2530
[5:54:30] plus. >> so this proposal was
[5:54:33] permanently destroyed. That
[5:54:35] community feeling we have if
[5:54:38] you make this decision is not
[5:54:40] something you can reverse once
[5:54:42] it happens it's going to affect
[5:54:44] central day forever. Another
[5:54:46] question I have is what problem
[5:54:48] are resolving california
[5:54:51] population is going down.
[5:54:53] people are moving out. In fact
[5:54:56] the net loss of population in
[5:54:58] california is wonderful and
[5:55:00] this kind of decision by the
[5:55:02] state is pushing more people
[5:55:04] out. They are moving to the
[5:55:06] state where this kind of junk
[5:55:08] is not thrown at them. And
[5:55:10] second thing is even in
[5:55:13] san jose for the last ten years
[5:55:15] are more we are losing point 3%
[5:55:18] >> every thank you that your
[5:55:20] time next speaker david noel
[5:55:24] come on down and tom wilson. >>
[5:55:29] good evening mayor and council
[5:55:31] members my name is maharshi
[5:55:32] patel and I'm a resident
[5:55:34] of district eight. I'm speaking
[5:55:35] tonight in support
[5:55:37] of increasing density to 32
[5:55:38] dwelling units per acre in our
[5:55:40] one zone areas. My generation
[5:55:42] went to school here, worked
[5:55:44] hard. Ghada got her degrees and
[5:55:46] became working professionals.
[5:55:48] yeah we're completely priced
[5:55:49] out of the very neighborhood
[5:55:50] that we grew up in. We're in a
[5:55:52] tough spot that we don't
[5:55:53] qualify for affordable housing
[5:55:55] and we can't afford the
[5:55:56] standard market rate housing as
[5:55:57] well because previous
[5:55:59] generations bought their home,
[5:56:01] bought one, their home prices
[5:56:02] were 3 to 4 times lower and
[5:56:04] interest rates were
[5:56:05] increasingly lower. Longtime
[5:56:07] residents are understandably
[5:56:09] staying put but without new
[5:56:11] housing options there is simply
[5:56:12] no room for young families and
[5:56:14] working professionals like us
[5:56:15] to move in. This isn't just
[5:56:17] about housing. It's about the
[5:56:19] future of our community. When
[5:56:20] young families can't afford to
[5:56:21] live here, our public schools
[5:56:23] lose enrollment and that they
[5:56:25] desperately need to stay open.
[5:56:26] in the past year we've seen
[5:56:28] multiple schools close this.
[5:56:31] thank you. That's your time.
[5:56:34] sandra mckinnon come on down
[5:56:35] and robert mckinnon >> hi my my
[5:56:40] name is jack adler. I am an
[5:56:42] immigrant from india. I grew up
[5:56:44] in india in a city I came to
[5:56:47] chicago, lived in a city lived
[5:56:49] in york, lived in philadelphia
[5:56:51] before moving here, lived it
[5:56:54] until we have a child who had a
[5:56:55] child. We moved to glen because
[5:56:58] we wanted a room. We wanted
[5:57:02] backyard I my job was in
[5:57:04] san francisco, still chose to
[5:57:06] live here and commute. What
[5:57:09] this proposal is doing is
[5:57:10] removing choice from people and
[5:57:12] that is un-american. Inherently
[5:57:15] people who like cities can live
[5:57:17] here. There is there is an
[5:57:18] apartment building across from
[5:57:20] city hall that has 15 open
[5:57:23] apartments. Nobody's renting
[5:57:25] them there, is there is if you
[5:57:28] want to live in middle there is
[5:57:32] there are areas like that we
[5:57:35] the the planning of the
[5:57:37] planning commission should >>
[5:57:40] that's your time next speaker.
[5:57:44] >> hi I'm kelly mcdonough. I'm
[5:57:49] speaking today as a member
[5:57:51] of sharon corey neighbors to
[5:57:52] urge you to reject the high
[5:57:53] density mixed use rezoning for
[5:57:55] north winchester boulevard. The
[5:57:57] foundational principle
[5:57:58] of transit oriented development
[5:58:00] is pairing high density housing
[5:58:01] with high capacity frequent
[5:58:03] transit. This proposal aligns
[5:58:05] with those standards. Direct
[5:58:07] service on this stretch relies
[5:58:08] on a single bus route vta 60
[5:58:11] with busses running 20 20
[5:58:12] minutes apart because line 16
[5:58:14] navigates major freeway
[5:58:16] chokepoints and airport
[5:58:17] terminals. It suffers from
[5:58:18] routine delays. There's no
[5:58:20] light rail, no heavy rail, no
[5:58:21] dedicated transit lane along
[5:58:23] this segment. Assuming future
[5:58:25] residents won't drive here is
[5:58:26] unrealistic. Without true rapid
[5:58:28] transit infrastructure, high
[5:58:29] density rezoning will create
[5:58:31] car dependent development
[5:58:32] spilling traffic into parking
[5:58:34] overflow directly into our
[5:58:35] neighborhood. I support michael
[5:58:37] mckay's proposal to leave the
[5:58:39] forest businesses alone and to
[5:58:41] limit the winchester sites to
[5:58:42] mixed use neighborhood zoning.
[5:58:44] thank you. Thank you. Next
[5:58:47] speaker. >> it is proposed up
[5:58:53] zoning helps the city. Helps
[5:58:55] corporations helps developers
[5:58:57] and helps billionaires. But
[5:58:59] this predatory proposal is
[5:59:01] at the expense of all working
[5:59:03] class neighborhoods. Yes, up
[5:59:05] zoning raises desperate
[5:59:08] desperately needed property tax
[5:59:09] revenue for the city and county
[5:59:11] and it helps the tech pros by
[5:59:13] building housing for their
[5:59:14] employees. But this is at the
[5:59:16] expense of we the people of the
[5:59:19] majority who you are supposed
[5:59:21] to be representing. Working
[5:59:23] class residents bought modest
[5:59:25] single family homes in san jose
[5:59:27] to escape the pack like sardine
[5:59:30] density of apartment living.
[5:59:32] now you want to bring apartment
[5:59:34] living density to their
[5:59:35] neighborhoods based on 1100
[5:59:39] pages of letters written to the
[5:59:41] city regarding zoning. The
[5:59:43] public is overwhelmingly
[5:59:45] opposed. This is your worst
[5:59:47] solution to the housing crisis
[5:59:49] yet so I urge you to vote
[5:59:51] against it. Thank you. >> thank
[5:59:53] you. Next speaker elva wilson
[5:59:56] enrique navarro and gene hunt.
[5:59:59] come on down. Go ahead. >> good
[6:00:03] evening. Honorable mayor and
[6:00:04] city council. I'm dave noel,
[6:00:07] district nine resident
[6:00:08] neighborhood leader and present
[6:00:09] of erickson neighborhood
[6:00:10] association. I urge you to
[6:00:12] adopt the following strategy
[6:00:13] for missing rental housing. >>
[6:00:15] first conform residential
[6:00:16] neighborhood densities with
[6:00:17] current state laws. Second add
[6:00:20] a minimum parking requirement
[6:00:21] for residential neighborhoods
[6:00:23] of one off street parking space
[6:00:24] per unit as allowed by sb nine.
[6:00:27] and third advocate at the state
[6:00:29] >> level to resolve the
[6:00:30] construction defect liability
[6:00:32] laws that currently prevent
[6:00:33] building condos which can
[6:00:35] provide the missing little
[6:00:36] housing we need at scale. Here
[6:00:39] are some benefits matching
[6:00:40] state requirements will allow
[6:00:42] sharing best practices with
[6:00:43] neighboring cities, reducing
[6:00:45] staff time and preserving
[6:00:46] capacity to address future
[6:00:48] state laws. Changes locating
[6:00:50] missing middle housing and
[6:00:51] transit corridors will improve
[6:00:53] vmt, tree canopy and service
[6:00:55] delivery while creating
[6:00:56] walkable neighborhoods.
[6:00:58] finally, conforming to state
[6:01:00] law will prevent local
[6:01:01] government mistrust when
[6:01:02] residents become aware of it.
[6:01:05] thank >> you that your time
[6:01:06] next speaker. This housing
[6:01:12] crisis is nothing compared to
[6:01:15] the number of new crises you
[6:01:17] will create if you
[6:01:19] indiscriminately start packing
[6:01:21] and stacking people in
[6:01:22] neighborhoods currently zoned
[6:01:24] for single family homes. Do not
[6:01:27] pack and stack people without
[6:01:29] full realization that each
[6:01:31] dwelling and each individual
[6:01:33] require water resources which
[6:01:35] we're already trying to
[6:01:36] conserve energy, power impact
[6:01:40] garbage and sewer systems. Each
[6:01:43] person deserves to count on
[6:01:44] san jose's first responders
[6:01:46] police, fire, ambulance
[6:01:48] hospitals all of which are
[6:01:50] already overtaxed and
[6:01:52] functioning below optimal staff
[6:01:54] levels. Traffic is impacted
[6:01:57] significantly and there's a
[6:01:59] much longer list. It is
[6:02:01] negligent to pack and stack
[6:02:04] people in san jose's single
[6:02:06] family home neighborhoods. You
[6:02:07] will only be creating a variety
[6:02:10] of new crises. >> thank you.
[6:02:13] next speaker down with the
[6:02:19] update on the city's plan to up
[6:02:21] zoned high density housing and
[6:02:23] single family neighborhoods >>
[6:02:24] is just bad. Do not kill the
[6:02:26] american dream. Working class
[6:02:29] families that worked hard all
[6:02:30] their lives to achieve the
[6:02:32] american dream of owning a
[6:02:34] single family home should not
[6:02:36] have that stripped away. This
[6:02:38] entire proposal only benefits
[6:02:40] >> rich developers, rich
[6:02:42] companies and politicians who
[6:02:44] want to get rich from campaign
[6:02:46] contributions and kickbacks. We
[6:02:49] need our city us to fight for
[6:02:51] us and not special interest
[6:02:53] groups. Protect our rights to a
[6:02:55] decent standard of living and
[6:02:57] their pursuit of happiness.
[6:02:59] san jose is already facing an
[6:03:01] infrastructure crisis with the
[6:03:03] need for electrical power,
[6:03:04] water, road repair and parking.
[6:03:07] adding more people to a
[6:03:08] neighborhood that was never
[6:03:10] designed or intended to
[6:03:11] accommodate that amount
[6:03:12] of people is just plain crazy.
[6:03:15] >> thank you. Next speaker greg
[6:03:18] peralta. Come on down. Doris
[6:03:20] lives and seek. Good evening.
[6:03:25] >> my name is robert wilson. 36
[6:03:28] year resident of deep. I've
[6:03:30] pretty >> aggressively and
[6:03:33] dramatically increasing
[6:03:35] unmandated levels of density
[6:03:38] will have greater negative
[6:03:39] impacts >> in lower income east
[6:03:42] san jose. We >> know it will be
[6:03:45] a fresh tool for predatory
[6:03:47] landlords to exploit vulnerable
[6:03:50] tenants by cramming even more
[6:03:53] renters into tiny cramped
[6:03:55] spaces to house people like
[6:03:58] cattle. Accepting this proposal
[6:04:01] is bad for all of san jose but
[6:04:05] it is systemic oppression for
[6:04:08] lower income neighborhoods.
[6:04:10] please >> consider the negative
[6:04:13] unintended consequences. Thank
[6:04:15] you. >> your next speaker. Good
[6:04:21] evening mayor and council. I'm
[6:04:22] cannavaro with the santa clara
[6:04:23] county association of realtors.
[6:04:25] to build housing and plan for
[6:04:27] growth in a responsible way, we
[6:04:28] shouldn't ignore transportation
[6:04:29] and parking consequences that
[6:04:31] come with increased density in
[6:04:34] low density neighborhoods. When
[6:04:35] more homes are added to an
[6:04:36] existing neighborhood, there
[6:04:37] will be more vehicles, more
[6:04:39] trips, more vehicle miles
[6:04:40] traveled and a greater
[6:04:41] competition for limited parking
[6:04:43] space. Those impacts need to be
[6:04:44] evaluated before density
[6:04:46] increases are approved or not
[6:04:47] after residents are already
[6:04:49] dealing with the consequences.
[6:04:50] that's one reason why we
[6:04:51] support concentrating growth in
[6:04:53] planned growth areas in mixed
[6:04:54] use corridors where
[6:04:55] transportation and
[6:04:56] infrastructure planning can
[6:04:58] better keep pace of development
[6:04:59] and >> housing affordability
[6:05:01] and supply is key and we do not
[6:05:03] need to sacrifice parking and
[6:05:04] increased street congestion to
[6:05:05] accomplish either. We need to
[6:05:07] think about how people
[6:05:08] primarily get around where they
[6:05:09] park and whether the
[6:05:11] surrounding infrastructure can
[6:05:12] accommodate the additional
[6:05:13] demand. So please support the
[6:05:15] man foley campos cohen and
[6:05:17] casey memo and the candela
[6:05:18] ortiz mulcahy memo which
[6:05:20] address these concerns and
[6:05:21] which have a deep >> thank you
[6:05:23] that your time lynn respects
[6:05:26] key. Come on down marin sader
[6:05:29] quest and jessica home. Good
[6:05:33] evening council and mayor. I am
[6:05:38] a 55 year resident in a single
[6:05:41] family neighborhood. I'm from
[6:05:43] district one. I'm present
[6:05:45] of the murdoch neighborhood
[6:05:46] association and I represent
[6:05:49] their opinions on this matter.
[6:05:51] I'm here to say I don't object
[6:05:53] to growth. We do need it but it
[6:05:56] needs to be carefully
[6:05:57] considered. Ample parking
[6:05:59] definitely needs to be
[6:06:00] considered as well as keeping
[6:06:02] trees. I'm a tree advocate. The
[6:06:06] state legislation already has
[6:06:08] sb nine, sb 310 and sb 79 to
[6:06:12] produce enough housing. Please
[6:06:15] leave the neighborhoods alone
[6:06:17] and focus on the numerous areas
[6:06:19] near existing transit as >>
[6:06:21] people who buy there won't need
[6:06:23] cars. Sb 330 says downsizing a
[6:06:27] property after it has been up
[6:06:29] zoned is legally restricted. In
[6:06:32] other words, please be >> thank
[6:06:35] you that your time? Steven
[6:06:40] meyer come on down and michael
[6:06:43] gordon. >> good evening.
[6:06:45] my name is greg. I'm with the
[6:06:47] santa clara county association
[6:06:48] of realtors. I'm here asking
[6:06:50] you to support the megan foley
[6:06:52] campus coin in casey memo. This
[6:06:55] memo strikes the right balance
[6:06:57] by meeting state housing
[6:06:58] mandates and avoids builder
[6:07:00] remedy. It adds parking
[6:07:03] triggers environmental reviews
[6:07:05] above certain density
[6:07:06] thresholds and allows light
[6:07:08] commercial uses for walkable
[6:07:10] neighborhoods. Thank you. >>
[6:07:13] thank you. Next speaker rebecca
[6:07:15] selden. Stephanie >> legs aa
[6:07:18] and david hind all come on down
[6:07:20] . >> good evening mayor and
[6:07:23] council members. My name is
[6:07:24] jessica home and I'm here to
[6:07:26] support planning staff's
[6:07:27] recommendations for a workable
[6:07:29] missing middle housing
[6:07:30] framework and the urban
[6:07:31] residential designation along
[6:07:33] winchester especially for the
[6:07:34] a26 north winchester boulevard
[6:07:36] >> project. As a millennial,
[6:07:38] many of my friends >> in
[6:07:40] san jose's still live with
[6:07:41] their parents and >> I know a
[6:07:42] lot of these people have talked
[6:07:43] about how hard they work but I
[6:07:44] think we work hard too and
[6:07:46] things are different now. We
[6:07:47] can't buy homes the way that we
[6:07:48] used to and now they're having
[6:07:50] children of their own and
[6:07:50] they're stuck in the same homes
[6:07:51] they grew up with. That's six
[6:07:53] people one bathroom, three
[6:07:54] bedrooms like that is just not
[6:07:56] a hypothetical housing crisis.
[6:07:57] it's happening right now and it
[6:07:59] is untenable. And just because
[6:08:01] some people don't get to
[6:08:02] eat all the cake they want
[6:08:03] doesn't mean that the rest
[6:08:04] of us shouldn't be able to
[6:08:05] eat at all. Please support
[6:08:07] staff's recommendations and
[6:08:09] give san jose the opportunity
[6:08:10] to build a homes that residents
[6:08:12] not just now but in the future
[6:08:14] desperately need. Thank you.
[6:08:17] thank you speaker. >> hello,
[6:08:20] I'm lynn pesci from district
[6:08:22] six and I'm here to urge the
[6:08:23] council to reject the proposal
[6:08:25] for up zoning citywide. Read
[6:08:27] our current guidelines and
[6:08:29] state laws already include
[6:08:30] opportunities to build for the
[6:08:32] missing middle but on a smaller
[6:08:33] scale. And as we implement
[6:08:35] these missing little guidelines
[6:08:37] we need to evaluate their
[6:08:39] impact on parking traffic, tree
[6:08:41] canopy and the use of services
[6:08:43] before we jump into more
[6:08:45] dramatic changes. Even if the
[6:08:47] proposed guidelines are put
[6:08:48] into place, they're going to be
[6:08:49] difficult to reverse and I
[6:08:51] really feel strongly that
[6:08:52] residents need to have the
[6:08:53] opportunity to give input
[6:08:55] regarding the developments that
[6:08:56] will have significant effects
[6:08:58] on their neighborhoods in the
[6:08:59] future. Thank >> you. Thank
[6:09:02] you. Your next speaker. Good
[6:09:07] evening >> mayor and council
[6:09:08] members. I'm marin sater,
[6:09:10] present of willow glen
[6:09:11] neighborhood association. We
[6:09:13] are not against housing. We
[6:09:14] support making san jose more
[6:09:16] affordable for future residents
[6:09:17] while respecting those who
[6:09:19] already >> call san jose home.
[6:09:21] because this proposal >> is
[6:09:22] discretionary. We should have
[6:09:24] data showing that this
[6:09:25] additional density will improve
[6:09:27] affordability and residents
[6:09:29] should have a meaningful voice
[6:09:30] in decisions affecting their
[6:09:31] communities. California has
[6:09:33] already enacted significant new
[6:09:35] housing laws. Why not wait and
[6:09:37] see their impact before going
[6:09:38] further? We also need to
[6:09:41] understand the impacts >> on
[6:09:42] infrastructure parking,
[6:09:44] livability >> and tree canopy
[6:09:45] goals. I asked the council to
[6:09:47] remove the proposed 8 to 32
[6:09:49] dwelling units per acre
[6:09:50] increase >> for residential
[6:09:51] neighborhoods. Then please take
[6:09:54] a thoughtful look >> before
[6:09:55] making meaningful making
[6:09:57] widespread changes that may
[6:09:58] conflict with the city's own
[6:10:00] transportation, public safety
[6:10:01] and environmental >> goals.
[6:10:03] thank you. Thank you. Next >>
[6:10:05] speaker. Hello mayor and
[6:10:10] council. I'm michael gordon,
[6:10:12] the present of the santa clara
[6:10:14] county association of realtors
[6:10:15] and a district ten resident. I
[6:10:18] think the public's concerns are
[6:10:19] clear and I appreciate that the
[6:10:22] balanced approach. The memo
[6:10:23] from mayor mehan, vice mayor
[6:10:25] foley and the council members
[6:10:27] campos, cohen and casey as it
[6:10:30] strikes the right balance. It
[6:10:32] meets the state housing
[6:10:33] mandates, avoids builders
[6:10:35] remedy addresses parking
[6:10:37] triggers, environmental review
[6:10:39] above certain density
[6:10:40] thresholds and allows light
[6:10:42] commercial uses for walkable
[6:10:43] neighborhoods. Please support
[6:10:45] the memo and the candidates
[6:10:48] ortiz and mulcahy memo. I think
[6:10:52] the public is demanding real
[6:10:53] transparency. They deserve more
[6:10:55] outreach, accessible online
[6:10:57] participation and stakeholder
[6:10:59] engagement well ahead of major
[6:11:01] decisions like this one. Show
[6:11:03] the residents exactly what's
[6:11:05] affected on the map. Publish an
[6:11:07] interactive address searchable
[6:11:09] map that shows exactly what. >>
[6:11:11] thank you. That's your time.
[6:11:14] alan. Go ahead, david. But
[6:11:17] alan. Jamie >> waite, joanie
[6:11:20] murphy, betsy tanner, pamela m.
[6:11:24] come on down. >> mr. Mayor,
[6:11:28] council members. I'm exhausted.
[6:11:29] I'm sure you are too. I thought
[6:11:31] I'd give you a quick summary
[6:11:33] of the letter I sent you. I
[6:11:34] thought I was going to have
[6:11:35] 30s. I urge you to approve
[6:11:37] them. The mason etc. Memo and
[6:11:40] certainly the ken dallas memo
[6:11:42] which I'd rather fortuitous as
[6:11:44] his name was first. I'd ask you
[6:11:46] though to do one thing and
[6:11:48] eight dwelling units per acre
[6:11:49] to the environmental review. We
[6:11:52] don't know if we don't consider
[6:11:55] >> the current conditions while
[6:11:57] we talk about up zoning we're
[6:11:59] missing the boat. It's >> hard
[6:12:01] to respond to mr. Burton's
[6:12:03] telephone calls since many
[6:12:05] of the things that we have
[6:12:06] heard are different. I also
[6:12:09] urge you to defer this citywide
[6:12:10] rezoning matter. All you had to
[6:12:12] do is hear the hundreds
[6:12:13] of people today. It's not
[6:12:15] necessary under sb 79 as we see
[6:12:18] the situation and also direct
[6:12:20] staff to study all fire risk
[6:12:21] areas. And I got another one
[6:12:24] but I don't have time. Thank
[6:12:26] you very much. Thank you. Next
[6:12:29] speaker. Good afternoon. I am
[6:12:37] part of councilmember casey's
[6:12:40] district and I appreciate that
[6:12:44] I have a chance to tell >> you
[6:12:45] that I am definitely opposed to
[6:12:47] the missing middle >> project.
[6:12:50] I think that that would destroy
[6:12:52] the single family dwelling. Our
[6:12:55] biggest asset my biggest asset
[6:12:57] is my home. You're asking to
[6:13:01] destroy a neighborhood in our
[6:13:02] homes? Councilmember casey, I
[6:13:06] >> actually have to say I
[6:13:07] haven't seen your memo with the
[6:13:09] others so I can't really
[6:13:10] comment on it. But when you
[6:13:12] were and you said you were
[6:13:14] going to put a lot
[6:13:14] of development downtown
[6:13:16] san jose. I'm not sure if that
[6:13:17] memo addressed that so I would
[6:13:20] hope that you would put that in
[6:13:22] you also downtown have the 20
[6:13:26] 2040 plan already in place. So
[6:13:29] aren't we going to run with
[6:13:30] that? >> thank you. Thank you.
[6:13:33] next speaker I'm joyce. Last
[6:13:36] name starts with an e. Go go
[6:13:39] ahead and go up to the
[6:13:40] microphone. It looks like
[6:13:43] kevin golden winchester
[6:13:45] corridor >> arts morris and
[6:13:48] kelly irani. Come on down. >> I
[6:13:52] urge you to push back to the
[6:13:54] state and please represent our
[6:13:57] interests. There is a lot
[6:13:59] of properties here that aren't
[6:14:01] even full. They might be a 20%
[6:14:04] capacity and adjacent >> right
[6:14:07] next to 280 and winchester.
[6:14:10] there's a really big building
[6:14:12] and I wonder if it's only 20%
[6:14:14] filled and 80% vacant. Why
[6:14:17] don't you take all the
[6:14:19] buildings that exist and make
[6:14:22] sure they're at full capacity
[6:14:24] and make sure that at least 50%
[6:14:29] of the units are lower? Lower
[6:14:33] priced housing and concentrate
[6:14:36] things near near where
[6:14:39] transportation is. Every
[6:14:42] apartment needs to have two
[6:14:44] cars. I mean in my 30 year old
[6:14:47] daughter is not going to get in
[6:14:49] one of your bike lanes down
[6:14:51] stevens creek. Thank you. That
[6:14:54] your time? Harry neal come on
[6:14:56] down, antonio. Deborah newcomb
[6:14:59] . Thank you >> mayor and
[6:15:01] council members for listening
[6:15:02] to all of us. I know it's not
[6:15:03] easy with all of us here
[6:15:04] tonight but on behalf of the
[6:15:06] vpi community association 82, I
[6:15:08] urge you to reject this
[6:15:09] recommendation and send it back
[6:15:11] to the planning department.
[6:15:13] council is being asked to make
[6:15:14] significant land use changes
[6:15:15] based in part on warnings about
[6:15:18] decertification builders remedy
[6:15:20] and state enforcement. Those
[6:15:22] are serious consequences for
[6:15:23] sure, but the connection to the
[6:15:25] specific proposals need to be
[6:15:27] demonstrated and not simply
[6:15:29] asserted require staff to
[6:15:31] clearly separate what state law
[6:15:33] actually mandates from what
[6:15:35] represents discretionary policy
[6:15:37] choices and if rejecting these
[6:15:40] density changes truly puts
[6:15:42] san jose at risk
[6:15:43] of decertification. Require
[6:15:45] staff to provide the specific
[6:15:47] legal basis and relevant
[6:15:49] precedent along with a complete
[6:15:51] analysis of the impacts on
[6:15:52] infrastructure displacement,
[6:15:54] affordable >> housing and
[6:15:56] existing neighborhoods along
[6:15:57] with meaningful >>
[6:15:58] alternatives. Thank you. >>
[6:16:01] next speaker also amy tran, tom
[6:16:05] tran, jack lin and ruth
[6:16:07] callahan. Come on down. >> hey
[6:16:12] mayor. Councilmember michael.
[6:16:14] first off, I'm our memories
[6:16:16] from the neighborhood and I
[6:16:18] foley support michael mulcahy's
[6:16:21] recommendations. Why? Well,
[6:16:23] come on. He's a genius, right?
[6:16:24] we all know that. So san jose.
[6:16:28] we're missing the middle,
[6:16:31] right? We have single family.
[6:16:32] we have tall buildings. The
[6:16:33] worse the middle and winchester
[6:16:34] corridor has an opportunity to
[6:16:37] work with that. And we have
[6:16:38] several buildings where if you
[6:16:40] make it a mixed use
[6:16:41] neighborhood we can build this
[6:16:44] middle right and have plenty
[6:16:46] of housing which is a win for
[6:16:47] san jose. It's a win for the
[6:16:49] cary neighborhood and it's a
[6:16:50] win for california. So please
[6:16:52] stick with his recommendation.
[6:16:53] thank you. >> thank you. Next
[6:16:55] speaker. Good evening. My name
[6:17:00] is kelly aurora. I'm the
[6:17:02] director of entitlements for
[6:17:03] vici, which is a minority owned
[6:17:05] company that is under
[6:17:07] construction on two sites on
[6:17:09] paige avenue in san jose and
[6:17:11] has a couple more in the
[6:17:12] building permit process. We'd
[6:17:14] like to >> do more. We received
[6:17:16] early denial over a year ago
[6:17:18] at 826 north winchester. When
[6:17:21] councilmember mccain the
[6:17:22] balance of the council asked to
[6:17:24] study more reasonable
[6:17:25] densities, our staff spent a
[6:17:27] year doing that with extensive
[6:17:30] public outreach and concluded
[6:17:33] that winchester corridor is
[6:17:35] near transit high grossing
[6:17:37] retail and their jobs are staff
[6:17:41] studies and made a careful
[6:17:43] logical recommendation that we
[6:17:45] support. Still if >> you don't
[6:17:49] do it here where are you going
[6:17:50] to do it? Where are you going
[6:17:52] to put the working people where
[6:17:55] they can live, work, play and
[6:17:56] stay? I think this is it. I
[6:17:58] don't think they're evil that
[6:18:00] they want to live in apartments
[6:18:01] >> and it's that's your time.
[6:18:03] thank you. Vests hermanas matt
[6:18:10] , I can't read the last name.
[6:18:13] it starts with an s and bob
[6:18:14] valderrama. Come on >> down.
[6:18:17] go >> ahead. Good evening,
[6:18:19] mayor. Council members thank
[6:18:21] you, staff for your time and
[6:18:22] listening to us today. My name
[6:18:23] is tom chen. I'm the present
[6:18:25] of california small builders
[6:18:26] association representing
[6:18:28] homebuilders and contract
[6:18:29] contractors all across
[6:18:30] california. We support the
[6:18:32] planning commission's
[6:18:33] recommendation for a missing
[6:18:34] middle housing. Please maintain
[6:18:36] the allowable density of 32
[6:18:38] units an acre citywide to allow
[6:18:40] housing without adding new
[6:18:41] parking requirements. This
[6:18:43] could help us be our housing
[6:18:44] needs by creating new starter
[6:18:45] homes for first time
[6:18:46] homebuyers. As you may know,
[6:18:48] san jose has been ranked the
[6:18:49] most expensive city to live so
[6:18:52] san jose is actually making
[6:18:53] great progress on creating new
[6:18:54] pathways for homeownership with
[6:18:56] the recent 80s sell as you may
[6:18:58] have heard that sold to a
[6:18:59] contractor. So that's our
[6:19:00] working class community that
[6:19:02] needs a house right here. They
[6:19:04] love to work here. Why can't
[6:19:05] they live here? This is finally
[6:19:07] the time to create houses for
[6:19:08] that. At the same time we need
[6:19:10] a way to be scalable model and
[6:19:13] then we need transparency is
[6:19:14] important for homeowners we
[6:19:15] respect the homeowners can as
[6:19:17] san jose publish an interactive
[6:19:19] map. >> thank you. That's your
[6:19:21] time. Next speaker alex shaw.
[6:19:25] come on down. Chris sava and
[6:19:27] aurelia sanchez. >> evening,
[6:19:29] mayor mahan and council
[6:19:31] members. I'm solomon. I'm
[6:19:32] actually a blossom valley
[6:19:34] resident and working father. I
[6:19:36] want to raise my family here
[6:19:37] and buy a single family home
[6:19:39] that I can call home. But for
[6:19:41] families like mine that's
[6:19:43] increasingly become a bit
[6:19:44] harder to afford. That's why I
[6:19:46] support missing mental housing
[6:19:48] things like townhomes,
[6:19:49] duplexes, starter homes. And
[6:19:51] while I understand that the
[6:19:52] change it's going to be
[6:19:53] difficult for a lot of the
[6:19:54] existing neighbors. I also
[6:19:57] believe that we can work
[6:19:57] together to add housing while
[6:19:59] respecting the character of the
[6:20:00] communities we want san jose to
[6:20:02] be a place where anyone could
[6:20:04] put down roots. And I hope that
[6:20:06] we can find a path that works
[6:20:07] for existing residents and all
[6:20:08] families trying to find a home.
[6:20:10] thank you. Thank you. Next
[6:20:12] speaker. >> good evening mayor
[6:20:20] and council members. My name is
[6:20:22] beth humana's. I grew up in
[6:20:26] santa clara county. My family
[6:20:27] and friends are still here and
[6:20:29] I recently moved back from
[6:20:32] central valley. I originally
[6:20:35] moved away because owning a
[6:20:36] home in san jose was out
[6:20:37] of reach. The commute was
[6:20:39] difficult but that time moving
[6:20:41] away felt like my only
[6:20:42] realistic option. That's why I
[6:20:45] support the general plan update
[6:20:47] and we're missing middle
[6:20:48] housing. Please give working
[6:20:51] people and first time buyers a
[6:20:53] path to homeownership. I hope
[6:20:56] san jose becomes a place where
[6:20:58] people who grew up and work
[6:21:00] here can afford a home without
[6:21:02] moving or having to live with
[6:21:04] their family or sharing an
[6:21:06] apartment. Thank you. >> thank
[6:21:10] you. Next >> speaker I have
[6:21:11] gary steve and louise luis
[6:21:14] kiana >> garcia. After these
[6:21:18] three names I'm going to call
[6:21:19] the online speakers so I just
[6:21:22] want the people who are on zoom
[6:21:24] to sort of wake up. Go ahead.
[6:21:28] >> hi, my name is bob
[6:21:30] valderrama. Thank you honorable
[6:21:31] mayor and council for having a
[6:21:33] public hearing on this. I love
[6:21:36] san jose. I grew up in district
[6:21:37] gate and been a homeowner in
[6:21:40] district nine for over 40
[6:21:41] years. Single family
[6:21:43] neighborhoods are not just part
[6:21:45] of the charm, the culture and
[6:21:46] the character of san jose. I
[6:21:48] would argue that these
[6:21:49] neighborhoods are san jose.
[6:21:52] okay. I urge you to oppose that
[6:21:56] this high density proposal and
[6:22:00] just to remind you that most
[6:22:01] of the people that voiced their
[6:22:03] opinion today did not move to
[6:22:05] austin or nashville or florida.
[6:22:08] they stayed here their
[6:22:09] faithful, their taxpayers
[6:22:12] property owners and just want
[6:22:14] to be one want to leave
[6:22:16] san jose san jose. Vote no
[6:22:17] thank you. >> thank you. Next
[6:22:19] speaker. Good afternoon.
[6:22:26] my name is chris auerbach and
[6:22:30] there's a good public policy.
[6:22:33] there's bad public policy and
[6:22:36] then there's public policy gone
[6:22:37] wild. This is public policy
[6:22:41] gone wild. This should have
[6:22:43] never been brought to the
[6:22:44] people. The thing about filling
[6:22:46] a middle is right now there's
[6:22:49] something in the middle.
[6:22:52] there's no hole. There's
[6:22:53] something there. If there was a
[6:22:55] hole, what you're talking about
[6:22:57] today probably makes >> some
[6:22:58] sense. But when there is no
[6:23:01] hole in the middle. And then
[6:23:03] the other expression that uses
[6:23:05] up zoning these are cutesy
[6:23:08] terms. But what we're really
[6:23:10] doing is saying density and
[6:23:13] what's density? That's where
[6:23:16] you build probably up right?
[6:23:19] and you have to have services
[6:23:20] and stuff. But the real issue
[6:23:22] here with housing and stuff
[6:23:24] like that is the price
[6:23:26] of housing. >> that's your
[6:23:28] time. The next speaker we're
[6:23:40] losing the >> housing battle in
[6:23:42] san jose. We are way behind >>
[6:23:45] the scenes of this housing
[6:23:46] crisis were sown over 50 years
[6:23:49] ago when san jose became a city
[6:23:51] of mostly single family homes
[6:23:53] reliant on driving. We >> went
[6:23:55] too far in one direction. Now
[6:23:57] we need a rebalancing >> so
[6:23:59] everyone can afford to live
[6:24:00] here. The only moral way we do
[6:24:03] this is denser neighborhoods.
[6:24:06] the only >> fair way to do it
[6:24:08] is along racial and class lines
[6:24:10] is multistory housing
[6:24:11] throughout san jose. And the
[6:24:14] best way to do that emphasize
[6:24:15] walking, biking and public
[6:24:16] transit without parking
[6:24:19] mandates. I love neighborhood
[6:24:21] commercial at the >> end
[6:24:22] of blocks in the command to
[6:24:23] videos memo. That's a wonderful
[6:24:26] idea and I hope it's something
[6:24:28] we can pursue. Thank you for
[6:24:30] staff for your work on this
[6:24:32] issue. Thanks council for your
[6:24:34] consideration. Thank you. Next
[6:24:36] speaker. >> by the wages where
[6:24:42] is that high speed rail? You
[6:24:46] know the it's got to be said.
[6:24:48] the state legislature in
[6:24:49] sacramento is out of control.
[6:24:52] it's got to be said it's out
[6:24:53] of control. So why have a
[6:24:56] planning department? If we're
[6:24:57] taking zoning orders from
[6:25:00] sacramento. So this proposal >>
[6:25:04] is crazy. Don't accept it.
[6:25:06] don't approve it. Throw it out.
[6:25:09] throw it out with the garbage,
[6:25:11] not the recycling stuff. So it
[6:25:12] comes back next year or the
[6:25:14] year after. You all need >> to
[6:25:18] go on garbage night and drive
[6:25:19] through your neighborhoods and
[6:25:21] other neighborhoods and see the
[6:25:23] trouble people have even
[6:25:25] fitting their garbage cans on
[6:25:27] the street. A lot of people
[6:25:29] can't even park in front
[6:25:31] of their own houses especially
[6:25:33] in a lot of the older areas.
[6:25:35] think about that. That's right.
[6:25:36] now that's not with 32 units on
[6:25:39] this side, 32 units on that
[6:25:41] side which is thank >> you that
[6:25:44] your time. Next speaker after
[6:25:47] this in-person speaker I'm
[6:25:48] going to call amy online
[6:25:50] followed by rene george, pam
[6:25:53] and cathy. So amy, rene george,
[6:25:55] pam and cathy, get ready.
[6:25:57] go ahead. >> hi, my name is
[6:25:59] lucien garcia and I grew up
[6:26:01] here in san jose in the east
[6:26:02] side. And as someone who
[6:26:04] commutes three hours every day
[6:26:06] to san francisco and still
[6:26:08] decide to live here, it's
[6:26:10] really disheartening to hear
[6:26:11] how many homeowners who I would
[6:26:13] one day would love to be don't
[6:26:15] want more housing >> to be
[6:26:16] built. I am commuting three
[6:26:18] hours a day to save up for what
[6:26:20] if there is no housing I will
[6:26:21] not be able to live here. Once
[6:26:23] I am able to afford a home. And
[6:26:25] as someone who grew up here
[6:26:26] it's very disheartening if
[6:26:27] there is >> no more housing
[6:26:28] built but responsibly along
[6:26:31] rapid transit which is what I
[6:26:32] do use a 66 bus and then the
[6:26:35] bart for an hour and 20 minutes
[6:26:37] one way. So please be
[6:26:40] responsible about how housing
[6:26:42] >> is built but it needs to be
[6:26:44] built or else people that love
[6:26:45] san jose will not get >> to
[6:26:47] live here. Thank you amy. >>
[6:26:55] good evening mayor and council
[6:26:56] members. My name is amy cody
[6:26:57] and I'm a resident of the
[6:26:58] moreland west neighborhood in
[6:27:00] district one. I support smart
[6:27:02] responsible growth across our
[6:27:04] city from our downtown to our
[6:27:06] neighborhoods. That said, I'm
[6:27:08] very concerned about the
[6:27:09] proposed general plan update
[6:27:11] and its unintended irreversible
[6:27:13] consequences on our residential
[6:27:15] neighborhoods. West san jose
[6:27:17] and other areas lack the robust
[6:27:18] transit infrastructure to
[6:27:20] support zero parking
[6:27:21] developments and our working
[6:27:23] families and seniors depend on
[6:27:25] their vehicles. A lack
[6:27:27] of street space already forces
[6:27:29] my neighbors in duplexes
[6:27:30] triplexes and other small
[6:27:32] multifamily properties to park
[6:27:34] in their yards across sidewalks
[6:27:36] or far away and to place
[6:27:38] garbage and recycling bins in
[6:27:40] bike lanes creating safety
[6:27:41] hazards. Please support the
[6:27:43] mayor's memo. At the least we
[6:27:45] need onsite parking
[6:27:46] requirements where possible and
[6:27:49] to ensure that total unit
[6:27:50] counts include ada use. And
[6:27:52] finally I agree with previous
[6:27:53] speakers that these major land
[6:27:56] use changes require more public
[6:27:58] outreach. >> renee. >> the
[6:28:04] missing middle proposal gives
[6:28:05] the middle finger to single
[6:28:06] family homeowners. Save our
[6:28:07] residential single family homes
[6:28:09] and residential neighborhoods
[6:28:10] and vote no on this proposal.
[6:28:12] this plan threatens single
[6:28:13] family homes because developers
[6:28:14] will buy and outbid potential
[6:28:16] homebuyers only to convert them
[6:28:18] to single family only to
[6:28:19] convert them to the most
[6:28:21] allowable number of units on
[6:28:23] that parcel. The planning
[6:28:25] commission should be working
[6:28:26] for city residents and not
[6:28:27] developers. If councilmembers
[6:28:29] have received political
[6:28:30] donations from developers they
[6:28:31] should let it be known before
[6:28:32] voting today. If councilmembers
[6:28:35] actually support this I'll take
[6:28:36] you on the ride along and show
[6:28:37] you what the future holds. I'll
[6:28:39] show you traffic cones, trash
[6:28:41] cans and furniture that people
[6:28:42] use daily to save their parking
[6:28:44] spots. It occurs in san jose.
[6:28:46] and this is going to start
[6:28:47] occurring everywhere else. If
[6:28:48] you vote yes, george followed
[6:28:53] by pam george. If you're on
[6:29:02] your phone it's star six to
[6:29:03] unmute. Okay moving on to pam
[6:29:11] followed by kathy. >> hello.
[6:29:20] can you hear me now? Yes. Yes.
[6:29:22] I am urging you to vote no
[6:29:24] along with almost all of the
[6:29:25] comments here today as well as
[6:29:26] the 12 packets of comments
[6:29:28] online. What is being proposed
[6:29:30] will fundamentally change the
[6:29:32] neighborhoods of san jose and
[6:29:34] there is only enriched
[6:29:35] developers while just
[6:29:36] increasing the overall quality
[6:29:37] of life. I support responsible
[6:29:40] housing development in san jose
[6:29:41] but san jose established
[6:29:45] neighborhoods are an important
[6:29:46] part of that and I have lived
[6:29:48] here for over 40 years and as a
[6:29:49] d9 resident who purchased a
[6:29:51] home in a single family
[6:29:52] neighborhood years ago to raise
[6:29:54] my children, I did so with the
[6:29:55] expectation about the
[6:29:56] surrounding land use framework.
[6:29:58] I'm particularly concerned
[6:30:00] about policies that would allow
[6:30:01] greater density on individual
[6:30:02] lots throughout single family
[6:30:03] neighbors without adequately
[6:30:05] considering the cumulative
[6:30:06] impact on neighborhood
[6:30:07] character traffic parking
[6:30:09] infrastructure, privacy trees
[6:30:11] and especially the scale
[6:30:12] of possible buildings in
[6:30:14] relation to existing homes.
[6:30:16] there's a big difference
[6:30:17] between allowing new forms
[6:30:18] of homes and changing the
[6:30:19] fundamental zoning
[6:30:21] expectations. Kathy >> followed
[6:30:24] by robert reese. Kathy at star
[6:30:33] six on mute if you're on your
[6:30:34] phone. I oppose this proposal.
[6:30:39] it would affect one want
[6:30:40] privacy would be impacted crime
[6:30:42] will increase the area will be
[6:30:45] noise zero that wants peace
[6:30:47] of mind and it will deteriorate
[6:30:49] the neighborhood. I agree that
[6:30:51] san jose needs more housing but
[6:30:53] please consider using empty
[6:30:56] tech or commercial buildings
[6:30:58] like whatsapp and cisco's doing
[6:31:00] for apartments. Okay robert
[6:31:07] followed by michael wing.
[6:31:14] hello, my name is >> robert
[6:31:16] reese. I live in evergreen. I
[6:31:17] support the memo by council
[6:31:19] members candela smoke and or
[6:31:21] keys. I'd like to remind the
[6:31:23] council that when you embarked
[6:31:25] on the update to the general
[6:31:27] plan a year and a half ago you
[6:31:29] explicitly along with staff
[6:31:31] said that the limitations would
[6:31:33] include excluding the high vmt
[6:31:35] areas. So it's sort of odd now
[6:31:38] a year and a half later to find
[6:31:39] out that there's a problem with
[6:31:41] excluding the vmt areas
[6:31:43] evergreen hazardous portion
[6:31:45] amount of pd zone lands and
[6:31:48] area plants like the evergreen
[6:31:49] village square. So essentially
[6:31:51] what we're talking about doing
[6:31:53] is re subdividing existing
[6:31:55] pods. My particular
[6:31:56] circumstances I live in a
[6:31:59] neighborhood with high fire
[6:32:00] risk skinny streets no
[6:32:01] sidewalks, limited ingress and
[6:32:03] egress. I'm already on a small
[6:32:05] lot. I also find it strange
[6:32:08] that the oecd would be saying
[6:32:10] that the 16 unit breakers is
[6:32:12] inadequate when they're
[6:32:12] allowing the west side cities
[6:32:15] to not. >> thank you michael
[6:32:18] wang followed by pierluigi.
[6:32:22] hello >> my name's michael
[6:32:24] wang. News flash. Our
[6:32:27] neighborhoods are already being
[6:32:28] destroyed and now by housing
[6:32:32] prices are rising prices are
[6:32:34] also the product of years
[6:32:36] of careful planning. The phrase
[6:32:38] the purpose of a system is what
[6:32:40] it does comes to mind. As a
[6:32:42] recent college graduate I still
[6:32:43] live with my parents. Our
[6:32:45] schools are closing now.
[6:32:47] housing costs are through the
[6:32:48] roof. This is sound like a
[6:32:50] system we want to keep or when
[6:32:53] we want to change. To everyone
[6:32:56] saying this >> won't activate
[6:32:57] builders already the amount
[6:32:59] of units built by the city are
[6:33:01] assessed in way through the
[6:33:03] housing >> cycle. This will
[6:33:04] help make up enough buffer to
[6:33:08] make sure >> that we don't
[6:33:09] activate it. Thank you. >>
[6:33:13] thank you pierluigi. Followed
[6:33:15] by blair. Npr recently reported
[6:33:21] no city >> is making the
[6:33:23] housing numbers in the state
[6:33:25] of california albeit >> for a
[6:33:27] few small rural areas. Next
[6:33:29] year california will have a new
[6:33:30] governor not running for
[6:33:31] present. And a new cd cd.
[6:33:34] director h.c. The numbers are
[6:33:37] ridiculous and unattainable.
[6:33:39] the state auditor's report
[6:33:40] of cd showed a lack of review
[6:33:41] matrices and sloppy data
[6:33:43] processes regarding suggestive
[6:33:45] versus mandatory language in
[6:33:47] their findings. A discretionary
[6:33:49] decision tonight regarding
[6:33:51] single family neighborhoods
[6:33:52] would lose the trust of san
[6:33:54] jose residents. Please drop
[6:33:56] this and stay with the current
[6:33:57] general plan that already
[6:33:58] accommodates hundreds
[6:34:00] of thousands increase in
[6:34:01] population and allows the
[6:34:03] countless new state laws to
[6:34:04] take their course which are
[6:34:06] excessive and whose impact will
[6:34:08] be massive. Thank you to all
[6:34:09] the sounds of residents who
[6:34:10] came to their first city
[6:34:11] council meeting tonight.
[6:34:12] speaking without lobbyists
[6:34:14] public hearings or a best
[6:34:15] practice in the usa. Don't
[6:34:17] experiment. Instead put it on
[6:34:18] the ballot. >> thank you,
[6:34:21] blair. Followed by marie glee.
[6:34:26] hi, I'm blair beekman. Living
[6:34:28] in san diego, the past four
[6:34:29] years they've done some really
[6:34:31] great work with >> past pap is
[6:34:34] finding homes for low income
[6:34:36] people. It's been a real
[6:34:37] success story that I know path
[6:34:39] works in san jose that I hope
[6:34:42] we can be talking about how to
[6:34:43] be housing low income people.
[6:34:45] I've been talking for years
[6:34:47] about mixed income ideas that
[6:34:49] don't necessarily have to work
[6:34:51] with >> you know, multifamily
[6:34:53] housing and missing middle
[6:34:57] things. It can work for single
[6:34:58] family homes as well in
[6:35:00] neighborhoods >> sharing
[6:35:02] community wealth and income in
[6:35:04] neighborhoods I think is an
[6:35:05] important goal that we have to
[6:35:07] be better learning. And that
[6:35:08] was mentioned by one of the
[6:35:09] first public speakers today.
[6:35:10] thank you for that. Good luck
[6:35:13] in addressing such issues. And
[6:35:15] good luck in working on tech
[6:35:16] accountability for our future
[6:35:18] neighborhood public safety as
[6:35:19] well. Thank you. >> thank you,
[6:35:22] maria. Glee followed by roland.
[6:35:26] >> hi, my name is mira and I
[6:35:31] just recently bought a home in
[6:35:32] district three and prior to
[6:35:34] this had been renting and
[6:35:35] willow glen. This was my first
[6:35:37] home purchase and >> it cost
[6:35:39] me an arm and a leg but was
[6:35:41] worth it because I love this
[6:35:43] city and when I actually save
[6:35:45] up enough I may even be able to
[6:35:47] start a family here. Please do
[6:35:49] not >> sacrifice city
[6:35:50] affordability and the future
[6:35:52] of the youth for parking. I do
[6:35:56] not want it to be this hard >>
[6:35:57] to afford living in san jose. I
[6:35:59] worry about the affordability
[6:36:00] of the city for current and
[6:36:01] future generations. The best
[6:36:03] way to reduce the costs of rent
[6:36:05] and living is building more
[6:36:06] housing stock and I would
[6:36:07] support this even if it would
[6:36:08] mean developing a high rise
[6:36:10] right next to me. I want
[6:36:12] my family to live in a vibrant
[6:36:13] community of residents both old
[6:36:15] and new that can afford to live
[6:36:18] in san jose. Please vote yes.
[6:36:21] thank you. Thank you, roland
[6:36:24] followed by dana murphy. >> and
[6:36:29] good evening. My name is roland
[6:36:30] o'brien. My family and I have
[6:36:33] lived near the santa teresa
[6:36:34] library station for over 40
[6:36:36] years. Please support the view
[6:36:39] request to rezone these 32
[6:36:41] acres back to the original
[6:36:43] mixed use housing zoning which
[6:36:45] has moved to the other side
[6:36:46] of the for you of highway 87 to
[6:36:49] increase the value of blue
[6:36:51] wolves. I stop also by $100
[6:36:53] million to finance those great
[6:36:56] stadia near the airport. Next I
[6:36:59] am strongly opposed to the
[6:37:00] demolition of two schools and
[6:37:02] one church. The other view
[6:37:04] light rail to make room for
[6:37:06] affordable housing. The soon to
[6:37:08] be 79. And finally last but not
[6:37:11] least I hope you value us all
[6:37:13] for 80,000. I repeat 80,000
[6:37:17] homes 30 years ago. Please
[6:37:19] consider rezoning sections
[6:37:20] of coyote valley for mixed use
[6:37:22] open space. Thank you >> dana
[6:37:27] followed by dan cortez. >> hi,
[6:37:31] my name is dana. I live in
[6:37:32] district three and recently
[6:37:34] bought my first home in bonita
[6:37:35] park. I want to live in a city
[6:37:37] that is vibrant and affordable
[6:37:39] and that comes from plans like
[6:37:41] approving to increase density.
[6:37:43] please build next to me. Please
[6:37:44] build around me please build up
[6:37:46] around the city it cost me >>
[6:37:49] about everything to afford a
[6:37:51] home here >> and but I love
[6:37:53] living in san jose. Please vote
[6:37:57] yes on the missing middle
[6:37:58] housing plan to raise the
[6:37:59] minimum to at least 32 dwelling
[6:38:01] units per acre. Thank you very
[6:38:03] much. Thank you dan followed by
[6:38:05] delma. Good evening. Born and
[6:38:11] raised here in san jose. I'm a
[6:38:12] 47 year resident of p6. We
[6:38:15] raised a good family here,
[6:38:16] bought a nice home here. I am
[6:38:18] here this evening to express
[6:38:20] my strong opposition to this
[6:38:21] high density proposal in our
[6:38:23] neighborhoods. While I
[6:38:24] understand the need for
[6:38:25] affordable housing in our city,
[6:38:27] there is no such thing as
[6:38:28] affordable housing in silicon
[6:38:29] valley. It is a misnomer. I
[6:38:32] believe that these projects
[6:38:33] would have a detrimental impact
[6:38:35] on our community. This is not
[6:38:37] what I envisioned when I
[6:38:38] purchased our homes here.
[6:38:40] furthermore, the type
[6:38:41] of housing development that's
[6:38:44] being proposed is simply not
[6:38:45] the neighborhood's. Please. We
[6:38:48] think this. I urge you to
[6:38:50] reconsider this proposal. I
[6:38:51] believe that this proposal is
[6:38:52] simply not the right fit for
[6:38:53] our neighborhood. Your
[6:38:55] neighborhood? This is not a
[6:38:56] well thought out plan. This is
[6:38:58] a blurred vision. I implore you
[6:39:00] to vote no. Thank you. >> thank
[6:39:04] you. Delma followed by mansour.
[6:39:08] >> hi. Good evening. This is
[6:39:12] thelma. I. I lived in district
[6:39:16] five for 27 years. I support
[6:39:18] allowing muslim missing middle
[6:39:20] class. My goodness. Missing
[6:39:23] middle housing in all
[6:39:24] residential neighborhoods with
[6:39:26] densities of up to 32 units per
[6:39:29] acre. We urgently need more
[6:39:31] affordable homes. We should we
[6:39:34] should make better use of the
[6:39:36] infrastructure we already have.
[6:39:38] I also support making it easier
[6:39:40] for school districts and faith
[6:39:41] communities to build affordable
[6:39:44] housing on our land and oppose
[6:39:46] adding new parking requirements
[6:39:49] that make housing harder to
[6:39:50] build. At the same time, I also
[6:39:53] urge the council to take
[6:39:53] careful approach to the growth
[6:39:55] of aa data centers and consider
[6:39:57] their impacts on water,
[6:39:59] electricity, infrastructure,
[6:40:00] air quality, greenhouse gas
[6:40:02] emissions. We use strong
[6:40:04] enforceable standards and
[6:40:06] meaningful community input
[6:40:09] before allowing this growth to
[6:40:10] continue unchecked. Thank you
[6:40:14] mansoor followed by bedwell.
[6:40:20] mansoor nasser. >> yeah. Higher
[6:40:24] density doesn't result in
[6:40:27] reduced prices. Look at london,
[6:40:29] new york. Singapore, chicago.
[6:40:32] rome. Madrid. Hong kong. To
[6:40:35] name a few. The environmental
[6:40:38] analysis and final
[6:40:40] recommendations won't be
[6:40:41] available until december 2027.
[6:40:45] while I approve the framework
[6:40:46] now and study the consequences
[6:40:50] later. Please do not ruin a
[6:40:53] great city and call it
[6:40:55] progress. Thank you. >> thank
[6:40:58] you. Manuel followed by j.r..
[6:41:03] >> hi. Good evening, mayor and
[6:41:07] council. And there's been no
[6:41:08] set aside. I'm promising
[6:41:09] at home I live in district four
[6:41:11] and I just want to call in to
[6:41:12] support increasing residential
[6:41:14] neighborhood densities to 30
[6:41:15] minutes per acre to support the
[6:41:17] development of missing middle
[6:41:18] housing from the charges and
[6:41:20] committee memo. You know we
[6:41:21] support increasing height
[6:41:22] limits for middle houses
[6:41:23] surrounding transit areas. And
[6:41:25] then from the mayor's brown act
[6:41:26] memo we support recommendations
[6:41:27] where the need to pick up
[6:41:28] lands. Also we oppose adding
[6:41:31] new parking requires two
[6:41:32] elements I think there's enough
[6:41:34] parking to go around and in
[6:41:35] certain districts seems to be
[6:41:36] over part but there's means
[6:41:38] of developing that that still
[6:41:40] allow for the development
[6:41:42] of high density housing in
[6:41:43] certain regions of the city. So
[6:41:45] that said, thank you for your
[6:41:47] time and good luck with
[6:41:49] everyone else's comments. >>
[6:41:51] thank you, j.r. Followed by
[6:41:53] teresa doerr. >> and evening
[6:41:59] council I'm speaking in support
[6:42:00] of council members command
[6:42:01] tordillos memo hold the line on
[6:42:04] no parking minimums don't undo
[6:42:06] what the city already
[6:42:07] got right. No more winchester
[6:42:09] style carve outs for whoever
[6:42:11] shows up and is the loudest
[6:42:12] voice. I love the idea
[6:42:14] of corner shops and bodegas.
[6:42:16] let's be clear about why I'm
[6:42:17] able to call in tonight.
[6:42:19] san jose didn't restore remote
[6:42:21] public comment out of goodwill
[6:42:22] state law forced the city's
[6:42:24] hand through sb 707 to bring
[6:42:26] equity back to public
[6:42:27] participation for years this
[6:42:29] chamber has been dominated by
[6:42:31] wealthy homeowners as we're
[6:42:32] seeing tonight from districts
[6:42:34] six, nine and ten with the
[6:42:37] luxury of child care flexible
[6:42:39] jobs and hours to sit here on a
[6:42:41] weekday. It isn't civic virtue
[6:42:43] it's privilege. Meanwhile, the
[6:42:45] renters and working families
[6:42:46] hit hardest by this housing
[6:42:48] crisis are stuck in work,
[6:42:50] at work in traffic or taking
[6:42:52] care of their kids as the
[6:42:54] campaign toward deals memo and
[6:42:56] prioritizes housing over
[6:42:57] parking thank you. >> thank you
[6:43:01] teresa doerr followed by toni
[6:43:10] there will be going to city
[6:43:13] council members I am a
[6:43:26] teresa I'm going to remove your
[6:43:29] person to speak go ahead and
[6:43:30] put your hand back up once you
[6:43:31] get your audio fixed toni
[6:43:34] followed by nathaniel mayor and
[6:43:42] council movement for council I
[6:43:47] beg you beg you to please vote
[6:43:50] no on this. I have been in
[6:43:53] my home for 47 years in
[6:43:55] district nine. I pray every
[6:43:59] time a house is sold on
[6:44:00] my block that they don't put a
[6:44:02] big gigantic thing and to have
[6:44:04] 32 units next to me would just
[6:44:07] totally I would leave and
[6:44:09] that's what I think is going to
[6:44:10] happen is you're going to have
[6:44:11] more and more people leave this
[6:44:14] that have worked hard and been
[6:44:15] in their homes for a long time.
[6:44:17] there are places there are
[6:44:18] buildings that are out there
[6:44:19] that have nothing in the use
[6:44:21] those for your high density I,
[6:44:23] I totally totally believe that
[6:44:26] we need to have affordable
[6:44:27] housing but I don't think it's
[6:44:28] going to happen even if you do
[6:44:30] do the high density because
[6:44:32] it's become ridiculous as with
[6:44:33] the tech companies and the
[6:44:35] wages that people are making
[6:44:36] here so please please vote no
[6:44:41] thank you nathaniel followed by
[6:44:42] sandy. >> good evening. My name
[6:44:47] is nathaniel and I've lived in
[6:44:50] santa clara county for most
[6:44:51] of my life and I'm here in
[6:44:53] support of the missing middle
[6:44:55] housing proposal. And I just
[6:44:57] wanted to mention that I feel
[6:44:58] like the a lot of this public
[6:45:00] comment has come from like an
[6:45:02] echo chamber of existing
[6:45:03] homeowners. These are these are
[6:45:06] people who have a home and who
[6:45:07] are worried about how this is
[6:45:08] going to affect their
[6:45:09] neighborhood. And that's
[6:45:11] understandable. But I also
[6:45:14] wanted to mention that I feel
[6:45:15] that right now there are
[6:45:16] thousands of working families
[6:45:18] in the city who are severely
[6:45:19] burdened by housing costs
[6:45:21] paying half their income in
[6:45:22] rent, doubling up with
[6:45:23] relatives or leaving that
[6:45:24] region entirely and then and
[6:45:28] missing middle housing is like
[6:45:29] one step in the right
[6:45:30] direction. So I just I'm asking
[6:45:32] for you guys to please vote yes
[6:45:33] on it. Thank you. >> thank you,
[6:45:38] sandy followed by gorman
[6:45:51] . Good >> evening mayor and
[6:45:52] council members. I request that
[6:45:55] you reject this city missing
[6:45:57] middle proposal. Why? It just
[6:46:00] makes absolute lutely no sense
[6:46:02] at all. No parking space
[6:46:04] minimums by right development
[6:46:06] up to 32 homes on a current
[6:46:08] single family lot and the list
[6:46:11] goes on and on and on. I don't
[6:46:14] think anyone is objecting to
[6:46:16] more housing but what we are
[6:46:18] objecting to is the increase
[6:46:20] density and the density in
[6:46:23] existing single family
[6:46:25] neighborhoods. I asked that
[6:46:27] before a vote is taken this
[6:46:29] evening by council you do two
[6:46:31] things and share that
[6:46:33] information with the auditorium
[6:46:36] and those online a tally for
[6:46:39] the for and against written
[6:46:41] comments. And I sure hope you
[6:46:43] read them and a tally for the
[6:46:46] for and against verbal
[6:46:47] testimonies tonight think about
[6:46:51] those numbers and the con >>
[6:46:53] thank you gorman followed by
[6:46:55] kenneth. >> >> hello city
[6:47:00] council I want you to remember
[6:47:03] you're on video we can see you
[6:47:05] on your phones because you've
[6:47:07] probably lost interest of all
[6:47:09] these people giving their
[6:47:11] opinions. I've also been here
[6:47:14] since 130 and I'm very
[6:47:16] passionate about rejecting
[6:47:18] this. All of this as the
[6:47:20] members of our city. This is
[6:47:22] not a state requirement. This
[6:47:25] is you this city who want to
[6:47:27] take away the homes that we
[6:47:30] paid for that we've worked for.
[6:47:33] and if you if you listen >> to
[6:47:35] the vast majority of the people
[6:47:37] that are against it are
[6:47:39] developers and real estate
[6:47:41] agents because they're going to
[6:47:42] be making millions off of the
[6:47:45] backs of the people that made
[6:47:47] san jose a desirable
[6:47:49] neighborhood to live in. Okay.
[6:47:54] thank you kenneth followed by
[6:47:56] george kenneth kay >> I'm going
[6:48:09] to move on. George followed by
[6:48:10] jake after >> jake will be
[6:48:16] sarina to george okay. Jake
[6:48:25] followed by serena and after
[6:48:27] serena we're back to teresa.
[6:48:31] I'm here. When I heard about
[6:48:32] this up zoning, I thought it
[6:48:34] was honestly some trump
[6:48:36] corrupts real estate developer
[6:48:38] written proposal not our local
[6:48:40] city council on development
[6:48:42] planning board. I mean I hear
[6:48:45] people say they want lower
[6:48:46] housing, more affordability. I
[6:48:48] totally understand that but
[6:48:49] that's not what this is going
[6:48:50] to do. When you go to buy a
[6:48:52] house you're a first time
[6:48:53] buyer. It's going to get bought
[6:48:54] by a real estate developer.
[6:48:55] they're going to outbid you
[6:48:56] because they have more money
[6:48:57] than you and then they're going
[6:48:59] to take it and they're going to
[6:48:59] build a bunch of houses on it.
[6:49:01] they're going to sell it for
[6:49:01] millions of dollars. They're
[6:49:02] not buying them to lose money.
[6:49:04] they're buying them to make
[6:49:05] money. We're also one of the
[6:49:06] places that it's the most
[6:49:07] expensive to build as well.
[6:49:09] that's why home prices are
[6:49:10] super high as they are right
[6:49:12] now. So I definitely urge you
[6:49:14] guys as somebody that's in real
[6:49:15] estate to vote no it's going to
[6:49:16] hurt the city, not help it's
[6:49:18] going to kill our
[6:49:19] neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank
[6:49:21] >> you, serena followed by
[6:49:24] theresa doe hello. My name is
[6:49:29] serena wu and I recently bought
[6:49:30] a duplex with friends in
[6:49:32] district three. I support
[6:49:33] increasing housing density in
[6:49:35] san jose to at least 32
[6:49:36] dwelling units per acre because
[6:49:37] it's clear to me from
[6:49:38] my experience in the current
[6:49:39] housing market how difficult it
[6:49:41] is to find affordable housing
[6:49:42] in san jose and our need for
[6:49:44] additional housing to meet our
[6:49:46] housing goals has been an issue
[6:49:47] for years already housing
[6:49:48] density does not increase
[6:49:50] overnight after rezoning
[6:49:51] according to the city's general
[6:49:53] four year plan, the city needs
[6:49:54] 55 dwelling units per acre to
[6:49:56] break even in terms
[6:49:57] of providing the services the
[6:49:59] people living there get. So an
[6:50:00] increase to 32 dwelling units
[6:50:02] per acre is only part of what
[6:50:03] we need. I do not want a
[6:50:05] crumbling san jose 30 years
[6:50:06] from now. We need action now to
[6:50:08] build towards a future that
[6:50:09] supports the generations to
[6:50:11] come. We need to vote yes on
[6:50:12] little missing and missing
[6:50:14] middle housing. Thank you.
[6:50:16] thank you >> theresa. Theresa,
[6:50:26] there is something you're not
[6:50:27] you're microphone isn't showing
[6:50:29] up at all so I think you are
[6:50:31] still having audio problems.
[6:50:33] caller 5140 please press star
[6:50:35] six to unmute. Okay go ahead.
[6:50:46] we can hear you. >> oh thank
[6:50:48] you. Oh thank you. Great. Yeah
[6:50:50] I think you guys need to reject
[6:50:51] this. It's not going to work if
[6:50:54] you don't have enough laborers
[6:50:56] that you to do the work. The
[6:50:58] building materials are super
[6:50:59] expensive and I want anyone to
[6:51:02] raise their hand there
[6:51:03] including the city council. If
[6:51:04] they took mass transit to even
[6:51:05] get there today where they have
[6:51:07] a great public transportation
[6:51:09] connect they don't have. So
[6:51:12] it's very important to not ruin
[6:51:14] the neighborhood people who
[6:51:16] have lived there for for a
[6:51:17] while of what >> it's the same
[6:51:22] person who is in person. Thank
[6:51:23] you. Yeah. You can't go home
[6:51:26] and raise your hand again, john
[6:51:29] followed by george >> and john
[6:51:45] kate george followed by
[6:51:46] kenneth. Can you hear me okay?
[6:52:00] you >> I took your permission
[6:52:02] away because you're having a
[6:52:04] really, really big feedback on
[6:52:06] your microphone so try to fix
[6:52:09] your audio. We're going to
[6:52:10] go to kenneth followed by pm.
[6:52:13] >> good evening. Can you hear
[6:52:17] me? Yes, yes. Hi, I'm kenneth.
[6:52:20] kenneth, have you ever saw
[6:52:21] this? I live in district three.
[6:52:23] I support >> enabling the
[6:52:24] development of missing middle
[6:52:25] housing in all residential
[6:52:27] neighborhoods >> by increasing
[6:52:28] density to 32 units per acre.
[6:52:31] this will help create much
[6:52:33] needed more affordable homes in
[6:52:35] san jose make smart strategic
[6:52:36] use of our existing
[6:52:38] infrastructure and reduce
[6:52:39] greenhouse gas emissions by
[6:52:41] letting people live closer to
[6:52:42] where they live work I
[6:52:44] encourage the council to take
[6:52:45] this necessary step in keeping
[6:52:47] with the city's housing element
[6:52:48] commitment. I support removing
[6:52:50] barriers including general plan
[6:52:52] amendments for school districts
[6:52:54] and faith communities that are
[6:52:55] zoned pcp to build affordable
[6:52:57] housing and other communities
[6:52:59] serving uses on their land. I
[6:53:01] oppose adding new parking
[6:53:03] requirements or limiting the
[6:53:04] parts of a city where middle
[6:53:07] housing could be built. We need
[6:53:09] it in every neighborhood. Thank
[6:53:11] you so much. I yield my time.
[6:53:15] thank you. P m followed by
[6:53:19] chris hi. Thank you for
[6:53:22] allowing me to address the
[6:53:23] council. I was actually there
[6:53:25] in person for several hours
[6:53:26] today. However I have young
[6:53:28] children and had to go and get
[6:53:30] them to not take mass transit
[6:53:33] because that would have been
[6:53:33] impossible to pick them up that
[6:53:35] school and get where they need
[6:53:36] to be and soccer and I'm
[6:53:38] sitting out here in the car
[6:53:39] waiting for my daughter to end
[6:53:40] her dance class so in general
[6:53:44] there's a big difference
[6:53:44] between allowing more housing
[6:53:47] and changing the underlying
[6:53:48] zoning expectations and I don't
[6:53:50] know if any of you have driven
[6:53:51] down bascom but all the new
[6:53:52] apartments here and there's a
[6:53:53] lot of vailable you know,
[6:53:55] studios are starting at over
[6:53:56] $3,000 so I'm really not sure
[6:53:58] what's being proposed is going
[6:54:00] to make things affordable. It's
[6:54:02] just going to add new problems
[6:54:04] and I think not solve what
[6:54:06] we're ultimately trying to get
[6:54:07] to here. So please I fear that
[6:54:09] there's no going back if this
[6:54:11] passes and I would like to see
[6:54:12] a no vote. I yield my time.
[6:54:15] thank you. Chris followed by
[6:54:19] john I >> just like to speak in
[6:54:23] favor of the missing as missing
[6:54:26] middle proposal and ask the
[6:54:28] council to vote yes. There are
[6:54:30] a lot of other comments I just
[6:54:31] want to I'm not a developer.
[6:54:32] I'm a resident and I think a
[6:54:35] lot of the comments sort
[6:54:36] of like to highlight that
[6:54:38] provides a lot of goes a long
[6:54:40] ways to providing more housing
[6:54:42] which is sorely needed and and
[6:54:46] basically I think more housing
[6:54:47] supply will help bring down the
[6:54:48] the cost of housing and make
[6:54:49] more housing available. There's
[6:54:52] a meter across island saying
[6:54:53] thank you >> thank >> you john
[6:54:57] followed by teresa after teresa
[6:54:59] I'm going to close now regina
[6:55:01] just put her hand up after
[6:55:02] regina. I'm going to close
[6:55:04] online comments. I'm going to
[6:55:06] call the last couple of names
[6:55:07] of in-person okay, john,
[6:55:11] go ahead. >> hi, this is john
[6:55:14] hessler. I'm the vice present
[6:55:15] of the center teresa foothills
[6:55:16] neighborhood association. We
[6:55:18] represent over 4200 homes in
[6:55:21] the south san jose area and our
[6:55:23] board of directors is
[6:55:24] unanimously and strongly
[6:55:26] opposed to the missing middle
[6:55:28] proposal. We note that the
[6:55:31] missing middle proposal
[6:55:32] directly violates and
[6:55:34] undermines a key principle
[6:55:36] of the existing san jose
[6:55:37] general plan known as major
[6:55:40] strategy number three which
[6:55:43] talks about keeping growth in
[6:55:46] identified growth areas and
[6:55:47] strictly limiting new
[6:55:49] residential development through
[6:55:51] neighborhood infill outside
[6:55:52] of those growth areas to quote
[6:55:54] preserve and enhance the
[6:55:56] quality of established
[6:55:58] neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank
[6:56:02] you, teresa. Let's try one more
[6:56:03] time and followed by regina can
[6:56:08] you hear me? Yes. Good evening
[6:56:10] . May or may han and >> council
[6:56:11] members I'm a resident
[6:56:13] of district six. I'm speaking
[6:56:14] on behalf of over 1000 members
[6:56:16] of san jose yimby we appreciate
[6:56:17] the work you're doing to guide
[6:56:18] san jose's future and we're
[6:56:19] supportive of the direction
[6:56:20] staff has taken. However, we're
[6:56:22] concerned that reducing plan
[6:56:23] density and reinstating parking
[6:56:25] minimums in key neighborhoods
[6:56:26] will limit the city's ability
[6:56:27] to respond effectively to our
[6:56:29] housing crisis. These areas
[6:56:30] were selected because they have
[6:56:32] strong infrastructure, good
[6:56:34] transit access and existing
[6:56:35] parking capacity, adding new
[6:56:37] parking requirements or slowing
[6:56:38] density makes housing more
[6:56:39] expensive to build and reduces
[6:56:41] the home number of homes we can
[6:56:42] create where they make the most
[6:56:44] sense if we miss these
[6:56:45] opportunities. San jose loses
[6:56:47] critical housing capacity this
[6:56:48] affects people who keep our
[6:56:50] city running firefighters,
[6:56:51] teachers, nurses and other
[6:56:53] essential workers who already
[6:56:54] face long commutes. It affects
[6:56:55] families trying to stay near
[6:56:57] loved ones seniors on fixed
[6:56:59] incomes who risked displacement
[6:57:01] and the next generation of tech
[6:57:02] workers who may choose other
[6:57:03] regions if they cannot afford
[6:57:04] to live here. San jose must
[6:57:06] build the housing needed for
[6:57:07] both today and tomorrow
[6:57:08] policies that key thank >> you
[6:57:10] regina. After regina it will be
[6:57:12] debbie, debra and ted in
[6:57:14] person. So debbie, debbie and
[6:57:17] ted you can make your way down.
[6:57:19] regina go ahead. Good evening.
[6:57:23] my name is regina celeste in
[6:57:24] williams and I'm the executive
[6:57:25] director of sba at home and a
[6:57:28] district three resident. I'm
[6:57:30] really excited about the staff
[6:57:32] recommendations because we are
[6:57:33] sba at home support increasing
[6:57:35] residential neighborhood
[6:57:36] densities to 32 units per acre.
[6:57:40] we want to support the
[6:57:42] development of more housing
[6:57:43] especially neighborhood scale
[6:57:45] housing which can create much
[6:57:47] needed affordable homes in
[6:57:49] san jose and we encourage
[6:57:51] council to really support
[6:57:54] building more housing in this
[6:57:56] city where people are looking
[6:57:58] for more affordability from the
[6:58:00] tordillos and campaign memo we
[6:58:03] support increased height limits
[6:58:05] for middle housing surrounding
[6:58:07] transit areas and from the
[6:58:09] mayor's brownback memo we
[6:58:11] support the recommendations
[6:58:12] related to pickup. We're very
[6:58:14] excited about those
[6:58:15] recommendations and we oppose
[6:58:18] adding new parking requirement
[6:58:20] to developments. Thank you.
[6:58:23] thank you. Next speaker. >>
[6:58:29] good evening mayor and council
[6:58:31] members. And it's been a long
[6:58:32] day. As a neighbor resident
[6:58:35] curry neighborhood resident who
[6:58:36] championed against the 17 story
[6:58:38] proposal at 826 north
[6:58:41] winchester, it's gratifying to
[6:58:43] see the turnout today from more
[6:58:45] san jose residents who love
[6:58:47] this city and want to see a
[6:58:48] thoughtful housing plan. I
[6:58:50] strongly support the mixed use
[6:58:52] neighborhood designation for
[6:58:54] the winchester boulevard
[6:58:55] corridor that is included in
[6:58:57] the recommendation from council
[6:58:58] members mulcahy, kendell and
[6:59:01] ortiz. It's sensible, it's
[6:59:03] reasonable and smart. It's a
[6:59:05] realistic compromise. But I
[6:59:08] have an important task and we
[6:59:09] must address transportation
[6:59:11] traffic and infrastructure bill
[6:59:13] before we move forward with a
[6:59:15] comprehensive housing plan. I
[6:59:17] know you're under pressure from
[6:59:18] the state but I know we can do
[6:59:20] better. Thank you. Thank you.
[6:59:22] next speaker I'd also like to
[6:59:23] now announce that every single
[6:59:25] card has been called from
[6:59:27] inside and out. If you put in a
[6:59:31] card and did not hear your
[6:59:32] name, this is the time to line
[6:59:34] up. Go ahead. Thank you, mayor
[6:59:41] . And the council members I'm
[6:59:44] debbie kerzner and I have lived
[6:59:46] in san jose for 47 years in the
[6:59:49] cary neighborhood. Our city is
[6:59:52] a vibrant has a vibrant
[6:59:54] downtown. It has vibrant
[6:59:56] neighborhoods. They are
[6:59:59] beautiful and they are the life
[7:00:02] of san jose. Please do not make
[7:00:04] our neighborhoods high density
[7:00:06] parking lots on all of our
[7:00:08] neighborhood streets. The new
[7:00:11] apartments built recently in
[7:00:13] our area of south winchester
[7:00:15] and bascom are not affordable.
[7:00:18] you want to increase density
[7:00:21] but we already have traffic
[7:00:23] problems and terrible
[7:00:25] congestion. And that has not
[7:00:27] been addressed. And we need the
[7:00:30] public transit to be adequate.
[7:00:33] please work to use the
[7:00:35] unoccupied tech buildings and
[7:00:37] apartments in the city to
[7:00:39] increase the density. I >>
[7:00:42] thank you that your time next
[7:00:43] speaker. Mayor city council.
[7:00:52] good evening. Life, liberty.
[7:00:56] the >> pursuit of happiness.
[7:00:57] that's what's going out the
[7:00:59] door here. That's in the
[7:01:01] declaration of independence
[7:01:02] thomas written by thomas
[7:01:03] jefferson. >> I think we've had
[7:01:08] some paid speakers here tonight
[7:01:10] that were >> supportive of this
[7:01:14] >> and this area has not been
[7:01:21] >> affordable for more than 40
[7:01:23] years. Also I think it's a
[7:01:26] disgrace for what I'll call
[7:01:28] newbies to criticize people who
[7:01:32] have lived here for 5060 years
[7:01:36] and they don't know the
[7:01:38] struggles that those people
[7:01:40] including myself went through
[7:01:43] to even get our homes 40 years
[7:01:45] ago. I'm out of time. Thank
[7:01:47] you. >> thank you. Next speaker
[7:01:55] I support the >> memo from
[7:01:57] council members mulcahy
[7:01:58] candidates and ortiz rezoning
[7:02:01] the winchester corridor as
[7:02:03] outlined in their memo is
[7:02:04] reasonable whereas the staff
[7:02:06] recommendations were not. The
[7:02:08] staff recommendations
[7:02:09] contradict san jose's goal
[7:02:11] of preserving the business tax
[7:02:13] base. Why weren't businesses in
[7:02:15] the affected zone consulted by
[7:02:16] the city during the staff
[7:02:17] recommendation process
[7:02:19] regarding a26 winter storm? The
[7:02:22] planning commissioner who
[7:02:23] stated he visited the
[7:02:24] neighborhood explained how that
[7:02:26] exploration caused him to
[7:02:28] understand 8 to 6 winchester
[7:02:30] boulevard >> should not be re
[7:02:32] zoned as the staff recommended.
[7:02:35] come and see for yourself the
[7:02:37] two legs of this l-shaped
[7:02:39] property surrounded on exterior
[7:02:41] sides by one side with the legs
[7:02:44] >> with the leg connecting to
[7:02:45] winchester being extremely
[7:02:48] narrow. The need for more
[7:02:50] housing doesn't justify trying
[7:02:51] to pack the staff recommended
[7:02:52] level density level into cary
[7:02:55] neighborhood. Those >>
[7:02:56] recommend that's your >> time
[7:02:59] next speaker. This is our final
[7:03:01] speaker. Well this has been a
[7:03:05] fun night. Good evening,
[7:03:07] council. First of all I want to
[7:03:10] thank you staff for the work
[7:03:11] that you've done. And I'd like
[7:03:13] to say mayor mehan, if you
[7:03:14] could be a little bit more
[7:03:15] judicious with that gavel. I've
[7:03:16] heard a lot of clapping
[7:03:17] tonight. >> but I do want to
[7:03:20] speak in very, very strong
[7:03:22] support of the memo from
[7:03:24] councilmembers come in terms
[7:03:27] the desperate desperate need
[7:03:29] for housing in the city is the
[7:03:32] issue not only of the day
[7:03:33] of the decade of multiple
[7:03:34] decades and we really need to
[7:03:37] be willing to take unpopular
[7:03:41] actions that are the right
[7:03:42] thing to do because the reality
[7:03:45] is that this city is so
[7:03:47] unaffordable that people like
[7:03:49] me I'm 24 college student I
[7:03:52] cannot afford to live here if
[7:03:53] things keep getting worse.
[7:03:55] people like me are not a
[7:03:57] rarity. People my age and young
[7:04:00] families are rapidly leaving
[7:04:02] the city and the region for
[7:04:03] lack of affordability. Please
[7:04:05] vote. Thank you. Back to
[7:04:08] council. All right. Thank you,
[7:04:11] toni. Thank you to everyone who
[7:04:14] spoke. We still have a number
[7:04:16] of folks here in the chamber.
[7:04:17] I'm really impressed with
[7:04:18] everyone's wherewithal. It was
[7:04:20] good to hear so many diverse
[7:04:23] perspectives both in person and
[7:04:25] on online. I'm going to may
[7:04:27] make a few comments >> and ask
[7:04:28] a few broader questions to
[7:04:31] frame things up and then turn
[7:04:33] to colleagues. You know, a
[7:04:37] number of residents have asked
[7:04:38] me over the last couple
[7:04:39] of weeks why why are we here?
[7:04:41] what are we what are we doing?
[7:04:42] and >> I think the simplest
[7:04:45] answer chris, I'm going to come
[7:04:47] to you in a second to talk a
[7:04:49] little more about this is that
[7:04:51] we committed to a direction in
[7:04:55] our approved housing element.
[7:04:56] it's worth remembering we had a
[7:04:59] housing element that was not in
[7:05:00] compliance. It took three tries
[7:05:02] and while we were out
[7:05:03] of compliance we had we
[7:05:07] builders remedy essentially
[7:05:08] imposed on the city allowing
[7:05:10] developers to build housing
[7:05:12] even on employment land very
[7:05:14] haphazard development where we
[7:05:15] lost control entirely which is
[7:05:19] a very bad place for the city
[7:05:20] >> to be. And as we came into
[7:05:23] compliance we made a commitment
[7:05:26] to explore some of these more
[7:05:29] modest densities. Now I think
[7:05:31] the community has asked a very
[7:05:32] reasonable question which are
[7:05:34] series of questions which is
[7:05:35] okay, there's been a lot
[7:05:36] of state law that has come down
[7:05:37] our way that has removed local
[7:05:39] control and create a lot
[7:05:41] of mandates. So you have sb 979
[7:05:44] ab 1123 and chris, I think you
[7:05:46] said about 450 bills but those
[7:05:48] are some of the more >>
[7:05:50] consequential ones. And the
[7:05:53] question really is in terms
[7:05:56] of what staff in the planning
[7:05:58] commission are sending to us,
[7:05:59] how different is it from what
[7:06:01] state law already requires and
[7:06:04] where it's different, why and
[7:06:05] really understanding that
[7:06:07] distinction that I think a
[7:06:08] number of people pointed to.
[7:06:09] now I understanding of sb nine
[7:06:12] is that on most single family
[7:06:15] lots in the city today an owner
[7:06:19] a property owner can
[7:06:22] essentially develop four units
[7:06:24] and given that most single
[7:06:27] family lots are around 6000ft²
[7:06:32] we're roughly are in one 8 or 8
[7:06:37] parcels eight lots to the acre.
[7:06:40] four times eight is effectively
[7:06:42] 32. So chris, I just >> could
[7:06:45] you comment first of all on how
[7:06:47] much of a change we're talking
[7:06:48] about what state law currently
[7:06:50] allows a property owner to do?
[7:06:52] and what's the difference and
[7:06:53] why are we doing this? Can you
[7:06:54] just go back through that
[7:06:55] again? Yeah. Thanks, mayor. And
[7:06:59] you have it right? So in the
[7:07:01] prior house in our current
[7:07:03] housing element we committed to
[7:07:05] a missing middle program and
[7:07:06] this actually dates back prior
[7:07:07] to the development of a housing
[7:07:09] element. If you'll recall
[7:07:11] roughly five plus years ago
[7:07:13] there was a conversation around
[7:07:14] what was called at the time
[7:07:15] opportunity housing. And the
[7:07:18] council declined to move
[7:07:19] forward at that time with that
[7:07:20] proposal because sb nine was
[7:07:24] coming into effect and the
[7:07:25] thought was well let's see how
[7:07:26] sb nine goes and you know we
[7:07:30] can see what the implementation
[7:07:32] looks like and what the impact
[7:07:33] to our neighborhoods is. And as
[7:07:35] >> a result, as we then moved
[7:07:37] into our housing element
[7:07:39] process and started to right
[7:07:41] the housing element we are a
[7:07:42] clear indication from hpd that
[7:07:44] they wanted to see a missing
[7:07:46] middle program pursued. >> and
[7:07:48] they were very direct about
[7:07:50] that and you know, they wanted
[7:07:52] to put performance standards
[7:07:53] around that and a timeline
[7:07:54] which are all included in our
[7:07:56] housing element. So you know
[7:07:58] we're about midway through this
[7:08:00] cycle we need to start
[7:08:01] delivering on these programs.
[7:08:03] you know, we've done a
[7:08:04] significant amount of work
[7:08:05] that's led to a lot
[7:08:06] of implementation but this is
[7:08:08] one of the major factors this
[7:08:10] in the urban village strategy.
[7:08:11] so as you approach this four
[7:08:13] year review, you know, we
[7:08:15] wanted to be considerate of the
[7:08:17] current condition. We wanted to
[7:08:19] think about a solution that did
[7:08:21] help preserve the character
[7:08:23] of single family neighborhoods
[7:08:24] when we wrote our general plan.
[7:08:27] a number of the speakers this
[7:08:28] evening have been absolutely
[7:08:29] correct. We prioritized high
[7:08:32] intensity, high density
[7:08:34] development along transit
[7:08:35] corridors and in growth areas.
[7:08:37] and part of the challenges we
[7:08:38] have not seen all of that
[7:08:40] development occur because
[7:08:41] of economics and some of these
[7:08:42] other reasons. So you know,
[7:08:44] part of our approach is we know
[7:08:46] we need to provide a great
[7:08:48] variety >> in the types
[7:08:50] of housing that the market can
[7:08:51] >> achieve that respects and
[7:08:55] preserves the character.
[7:08:56] everything of our single family
[7:08:57] neighborhoods. So we have a
[7:08:59] situation where we're looking
[7:09:00] at this program. We also have a
[7:09:02] number of state laws that have
[7:09:03] been implemented and you're
[7:09:04] absolutely right on the density
[7:09:05] question so under sb nine there
[7:09:08] is the opportunity for four
[7:09:09] primary units in the context
[7:09:11] of to duplexes on one single
[7:09:13] family existing single family
[7:09:15] line. And so we felt like we
[7:09:17] could create a program in the
[7:09:19] city that sort of maintains and
[7:09:21] or was parallel to what sb nine
[7:09:24] would allow but that we could
[7:09:26] design with the context of more
[7:09:28] local design standards and
[7:09:30] controls that would allow us to
[7:09:32] sort of help preserve that
[7:09:33] single family neighborhood
[7:09:34] character. So that's the
[7:09:36] approach that we took. You
[7:09:38] know, we believe that that's
[7:09:39] consistent with the spirit
[7:09:41] of p35 in the housing element.
[7:09:44] but sort of gets us the best
[7:09:45] of both worlds but doesn't
[7:09:47] really extend much beyond what
[7:09:48] you can do on the state level.
[7:09:49] >> okay. Thanks. Can you just
[7:09:51] say the last part again if you
[7:09:52] already today in most
[7:09:55] residential neighborhoods can
[7:09:57] buy a parcel and under state
[7:10:00] law convert it to four to
[7:10:02] redevelop it to four >> units
[7:10:05] which we've seen a few examples
[7:10:06] of but not a lot. My guess is
[7:10:08] that doesn't actually pencil in
[7:10:10] a lot of places but if you can
[7:10:13] that's effectively 32 units to
[7:10:15] the acre. So what's the
[7:10:16] difference? And what you're
[7:10:18] saying there's an advantage to
[7:10:20] having >> this path rather than
[7:10:21] sb nine. So we >> think there's
[7:10:23] an advantage from the city's
[7:10:24] perspective because it allows
[7:10:26] us to implement design
[7:10:28] standards that sort of a more
[7:10:29] respectful of the neighborhood
[7:10:30] character. I think the broader
[7:10:33] policy objective of allowing a
[7:10:35] local program is that there is
[7:10:38] probably more market desire to
[7:10:40] pursue this than some of the
[7:10:41] restrictions that exist under
[7:10:43] sb nine. So right now there's a
[7:10:45] residency requirement, right?
[7:10:47] so somebody who owns the law
[7:10:49] has to stay in residence for
[7:10:50] two years post development. And
[7:10:53] that's been a significant
[7:10:54] barrier to a lot of the people
[7:10:55] that have explored sb nine as
[7:10:56] an opportunity to >> couple
[7:11:00] other issues adjacent to that I
[7:11:02] would like to better understand
[7:11:05] what mergers and whether or not
[7:11:08] that >> is you kind
[7:11:10] of reference to quickly as a
[7:11:11] potential tool that council
[7:11:13] might want to explore and I
[7:11:14] think for context for the
[7:11:15] public this is the first time
[7:11:17] these recommendations are
[7:11:18] coming to the council. There's
[7:11:19] been a process where I'm going
[7:11:21] to talk about the process and
[7:11:22] public input in a moment as
[7:11:24] well. But this is the first
[7:11:26] time we're having this
[7:11:27] conversation at this set
[7:11:29] of recommendations that would
[7:11:30] come back to the council in
[7:11:32] over a year from now. So we are
[7:11:34] not at the end of the
[7:11:36] conversation. I want to be
[7:11:37] really clear about that. On lot
[7:11:41] mergers >> and to use so how to
[7:11:43] add use count in the unit count
[7:11:44] and what should we take from
[7:11:45] that and and what is the risk
[7:11:47] of what mergers or is that
[7:11:49] maybe a restriction that
[7:11:50] council might want to have in
[7:11:51] its toolkit? So >> just to
[7:11:53] start with lot mergers that is
[7:11:54] something that we have the
[7:11:56] ability to put standards in
[7:11:58] place so we can you know,
[7:12:00] restrict the ability to merge
[7:12:02] logs. We can have restrictions
[7:12:04] around lot sizes as well to say
[7:12:06] that you can only do this
[7:12:07] development on a certain size
[7:12:09] that stops people from
[7:12:10] aggregating so >> big corporate
[7:12:11] developer can't come in you
[7:12:13] know merge together, roll up 8
[7:12:16] or 10 single family homes and
[7:12:17] build some massive you know,
[7:12:20] connecting on the middle of oc.
[7:12:22] that seems important. So right
[7:12:24] now >> as it relates to edu law
[7:12:27] and one of the challenges again
[7:12:28] by what we've seen both in
[7:12:31] single family neighborhoods and
[7:12:32] with multifamily development is
[7:12:34] you know adu law tends to layer
[7:12:36] on top of local provisions and
[7:12:41] people are using that in
[7:12:42] multiple different ways and
[7:12:43] obviously there's a there's
[7:12:46] much more much less
[7:12:47] restrictions we can put in
[7:12:48] place on adus. You know,
[7:12:51] certainly they can build in
[7:12:52] reduced setbacks. They require
[7:12:54] no parking. The standards there
[7:12:56] are very different. So in
[7:12:58] theory, you know, adus sit on
[7:13:00] top of whatever requirement we
[7:13:02] create in our end. I think
[7:13:04] again from our approach is to
[7:13:07] design standards that encourage
[7:13:09] the market to deliver a type
[7:13:11] of development similar to the
[7:13:12] types of you know, examples
[7:13:14] that we showed in the
[7:13:15] photographs. And what you'll
[7:13:16] 
[7:13:18] the utilizing the lot for the
[7:13:20] four units or the three units
[7:13:22] and it reduces the opportunity
[7:13:24] to leverage edu as a you know
[7:13:26] an additional sort of capacity
[7:13:28] gain. Okay. Thanks. >> I think
[7:13:30] given the way the state
[7:13:31] interprets ada use and the
[7:13:33] count as in not counting them
[7:13:35] though they do count toward our
[7:13:36] arena target so there seems to
[7:13:37] be quite a discrepancy here in
[7:13:39] how the state is as counting
[7:13:41] need to use it yes in one case
[7:13:42] not in another. But I think
[7:13:45] that's part of the motivation
[7:13:46] for our group member to say
[7:13:47] let's look at a range. Let's
[7:13:49] look at 16 to 32. Our member
[7:13:51] also does speak to parking
[7:13:54] requirements. We're allowed by
[7:13:55] state law and the reality is in
[7:13:57] much of the city we are
[7:13:58] preempted by state law and not
[7:14:00] allowed to impose a parking
[7:14:02] requirement. And san jose was
[7:14:04] actually a leader in removing
[7:14:06] parking requirements. But
[7:14:07] really if you were here for
[7:14:09] that conversation it was in the
[7:14:10] context largely of our downtown
[7:14:15] urban villages near transit
[7:14:17] multi-family denser development
[7:14:19] where I remember very
[7:14:20] distinctly one of the big
[7:14:22] things we were pointing to
[7:14:23] which I think still is is very
[7:14:25] valid is the notion
[7:14:26] of unbundled parking. If you
[7:14:28] have an office building next to
[7:14:29] an apartment or condo tower you
[7:14:33] might be able to share the
[7:14:33] parking because people need to
[7:14:35] park at home at night in the
[7:14:36] apartment building and maybe
[7:14:38] park where they work and so you
[7:14:40] could actually make more
[7:14:40] efficient use of unbundled
[7:14:42] parking in a place like
[7:14:43] downtown or urban village. I
[7:14:45] think when you get out into
[7:14:47] councilmember ortiz's district
[7:14:48] where I have walked many times
[7:14:51] and seen families coming home
[7:14:52] you know, people going home
[7:14:53] from a second job having to
[7:14:55] park six blocks from their home
[7:14:57] every night to know that it is
[7:14:59] something that when you get out
[7:15:00] to the periphery of our city
[7:15:01] you really need to be thinking
[7:15:02] about that impact on people's
[7:15:04] lives. I would say for I know
[7:15:06] we have a number of very pro
[7:15:07] housing folks who spoken and I
[7:15:09] you know, often find myself
[7:15:11] very aligned with that
[7:15:12] perspective. I do think that we
[7:15:16] shouldn't be overly
[7:15:17] ideologically rigid about the
[7:15:19] notion that we should never
[7:15:21] have any kind of parking
[7:15:22] requirement anywhere in the
[7:15:23] city. I think that's that's
[7:15:24] overly overly broad. So our
[7:15:26] memo says let's let's study
[7:15:27] that. I really appreciate the
[7:15:29] group memo pointing to density
[7:15:32] in fire high fire risk zones I
[7:15:35] thought that was a really
[7:15:36] thoughtful inclusion. I do
[7:15:39] think we should be looking
[7:15:40] at at lot mergers. So I think
[7:15:42] what our memo and I think
[7:15:43] colleagues memos point to is
[7:15:46] some areas where we really
[7:15:47] ought to study the notion that
[7:15:50] we can be super dense in
[7:15:52] downtown in urban villages and
[7:15:54] then kind of have that go down
[7:15:56] as you go out and start to
[7:15:57] think about some of those other
[7:15:58] impacts I will say I'm really
[7:16:00] proud of all the actions this
[7:16:01] council has taken to be
[7:16:03] extremely pro housing removing
[7:16:07] the you know increasing
[7:16:10] capacity in in our plant growth
[7:16:13] areas, removing the
[7:16:14] construction tax, having to
[7:16:16] park fees, removing the
[7:16:18] unfunded inclusion requirement,
[7:16:21] moving to ministerial
[7:16:22] approvals, getting rid
[7:16:23] of parking requirements. We
[7:16:24] have led so many times on
[7:16:26] saying yes to housing but I do
[7:16:29] think that we need to really be
[7:16:30] thoughtful about how we manage
[7:16:32] change out in our
[7:16:33] neighborhoods. So as was
[7:16:34] pointed out in many cases state
[7:16:36] laws have already dictated a
[7:16:38] density level that you're not
[7:16:39] recommending we go beyond I
[7:16:40] don't think the public really
[7:16:42] understands that which gets to
[7:16:43] my last point. Public input.
[7:16:45] can you just share with us up
[7:16:47] to this point as you went
[7:16:49] through the initial stage
[7:16:50] of the process with the
[7:16:51] planning commission and came
[7:16:52] here to the council for the
[7:16:53] first time with your
[7:16:54] recommendation, what kind
[7:16:56] of community engagement and
[7:16:57] public input you you organized
[7:17:01] and what we can expect over the
[7:17:03] next year as this continues to
[7:17:05] develop. >> yeah it
[7:17:07] sounds great. Let mahan over to
[7:17:08] ruth to talk through public
[7:17:09] outreach and then maybe circle
[7:17:12] back on what to expect. Thank
[7:17:15] >> you mayor so staff in
[7:17:18] partnership with the office
[7:17:19] of racial and social equity and
[7:17:21] our community engagement
[7:17:22] consultant kicked off our
[7:17:24] outreach strategy that we
[7:17:25] discussed with council and
[7:17:26] council approved last year. We
[7:17:29] began with a virtual webinar.
[7:17:32] we also employed different
[7:17:34] methods to reach out to people
[7:17:36] so we had four in-person open
[7:17:37] houses across the city really
[7:17:40] targeting communities that we
[7:17:42] don't often hear from. We had
[7:17:45] several leadership meetings six
[7:17:47] I think it might be seven
[7:17:47] actually we had our town hall
[7:17:49] last week seven neighborhood
[7:17:51] meetings with the office
[7:17:53] of racial and social equity. We
[7:17:55] were able to host three focus
[7:17:56] groups. In addition, we had our
[7:17:59] task force meetings which
[7:18:00] allowed for public comment. I
[7:18:02] think after the first meeting
[7:18:03] public comment was taken before
[7:18:05] the task force sort
[7:18:07] of deliberated and gave us
[7:18:09] their feedback. We met with
[7:18:10] intergovernmental agencies and
[7:18:13] also we sort of did our online
[7:18:17] sort of email blasts and our >>
[7:18:21] virtual open house. I will say
[7:18:23] through our four in-person
[7:18:24] houses we did touch sort
[7:18:27] of communicate with over 800
[7:18:29] residents and people in the
[7:18:30] city. One of these open houses
[7:18:32] was at veeva. So that's the one
[7:18:33] where we actually were able to
[7:18:35] talk to the most most of the
[7:18:36] community and we had roughly
[7:18:39] 400 participants in the virtual
[7:18:41] open house. >> thanks, ruth.
[7:18:43] and then from this point
[7:18:45] forward, whatever direction we
[7:18:46] ultimately settle on here
[7:18:48] you've got a process that runs
[7:18:50] more than a year presumably
[7:18:52] before we take a final vote on
[7:18:54] where we are. What does that
[7:18:57] community engagement look like
[7:18:58] ? Right. There's a number
[7:18:59] of different opportunities for
[7:19:01] us to engage the community both
[7:19:02] in the formal process as we get
[7:19:04] launch our environmental
[7:19:05] process that has, you know,
[7:19:06] very prescriptive elements as
[7:19:08] well as sort of more of the
[7:19:11] community engagement and
[7:19:12] participation opportunities
[7:19:13] that we'll be looking to craft
[7:19:15] as we develop those standards
[7:19:16] so we can create regular
[7:19:18] touchpoints. We don't have all
[7:19:20] of those aspects foley fleshed
[7:19:21] out but I think we're going to
[7:19:22] be looking for opportunities to
[7:19:23] engage with partner departments
[7:19:25] to continue to sort of spread
[7:19:27] the opportunity to talk about
[7:19:29] this as well as engaging with
[7:19:31] those groups that we've managed
[7:19:33] to reach through our process so
[7:19:34] far to keep them you know,
[7:19:36] engaged in this and allow them
[7:19:38] to provide additional feedback
[7:19:39] as we go. >> okay. And sorry to
[7:19:42] put you on the spot with this
[7:19:42] but does ppc have the capacity
[7:19:45] to manage all that public
[7:19:46] engagement? Do we need to talk
[7:19:47] about what else as one team the
[7:19:49] administration might do to
[7:19:50] support a robust public
[7:19:52] engagement process over the
[7:19:53] next year? Yeah, absolutely. I
[7:19:55] think obviously we're going to
[7:19:56] look for those opportunities.
[7:19:57] you know, with the city
[7:19:58] manager's office we've had a
[7:20:00] great partnership with the
[7:20:02] office of racial and social
[7:20:04] equity on our outreach so far.
[7:20:06] and then as I said, I think
[7:20:07] some of those other partner
[7:20:08] departments that are also
[7:20:09] consistently out with the
[7:20:10] community they represent a
[7:20:12] great opportunity for us to
[7:20:13] partner and tag along to spread
[7:20:16] sort of more engagement and
[7:20:18] more information about what
[7:20:19] we're doing. >> yeah, I just I
[7:20:20] really don't want to be here a
[7:20:21] year from now and have people
[7:20:23] feel like they were not aware
[7:20:24] that we were having this
[7:20:25] conversation. So I just hope
[7:20:26] jennifer the spirit
[7:20:28] of leveraging the whole
[7:20:29] capacity of the administration
[7:20:31] that will find more ways to to
[7:20:33] engage the public. I said that
[7:20:34] was my last point. Just very
[7:20:35] quickly though, chris, I do
[7:20:37] want to know more about your
[7:20:38] conversations with side the
[7:20:40] risk of decertification. I
[7:20:41] understand you said you just
[7:20:42] had a call with them. What is
[7:20:44] your sense of what they're
[7:20:47] essentially are our obligations
[7:20:49] are to stay compliant and what
[7:20:51] would avoid decertification and
[7:20:53] going back to builder's remedy
[7:20:54] which I think we all want to
[7:20:55] avoid. >> yeah. So obviously,
[7:20:59] you know, this is really staff
[7:21:00] level guidance. We reach out to
[7:21:02] each side and work with them on
[7:21:03] a fairly regular basis around
[7:21:05] project issues and policy
[7:21:07] issues. So they do make
[7:21:09] themselves available when we
[7:21:10] need to talk through this. So I
[7:21:12] reached out end of last week I
[7:21:15] was on a call with one of the
[7:21:17] senior program managers with
[7:21:19] each side on monday just
[7:21:21] because we wanted to discuss,
[7:21:22] you know, this item coming
[7:21:23] forward to city council and
[7:21:25] just get a sense of how they
[7:21:27] might view, you know, an
[7:21:29] alternate proposal based on
[7:21:30] some of the memos that we were
[7:21:32] seeing coming through from
[7:21:33] council. Like I said, it's
[7:21:35] staff level guidance. It's
[7:21:36] certainly not a written opinion
[7:21:38] by cdd. I think there's a
[7:21:40] couple of important things that
[7:21:42] came from that conversation. So
[7:21:43] one is they look at our missing
[7:21:45] middle program. Really the
[7:21:47] focus is creating opportunities
[7:21:49] for diverse housing in high
[7:21:52] opportunity areas areas where
[7:21:54] they don't currently exist.
[7:21:56] there's a chart we used in I
[7:21:58] think a study session and in
[7:21:59] some of the other presentations
[7:22:01] we've done that really
[7:22:02] highlights that you know it
[7:22:04] really is a missing middle.
[7:22:05] there's a huge gap around these
[7:22:06] types of housing throughout the
[7:22:08] city. And so what they're
[7:22:11] looking for and you saw the
[7:22:12] high opportunity map is how do
[7:22:14] we create opportunities for for
[7:22:17] that gap, right? That's the gap
[7:22:18] that ultimately we have. You
[7:22:21] had it there for a second and
[7:22:25] it's really around, you know,
[7:22:26] so I mean we don't have a ton
[7:22:28] of duplexes. It's really around
[7:22:29] those opportunities for two or
[7:22:31] 3 or 4 units. You know, we're
[7:22:33] seeing more opportunity through
[7:22:35] some state law in the sort of,
[7:22:36] you know, 10 to 20 and plus I'm
[7:22:39] seeing some success there. But
[7:22:41] they really sort of focused on
[7:22:42] that high opportunity area
[7:22:43] piece. What they did say was,
[7:22:45] you know, obviously as they're
[7:22:46] focused on it, they're looking
[7:22:48] at what's already allowed under
[7:22:49] state law and while, you know,
[7:22:51] sb nine does allow up to four,
[7:22:53] you know the focus in many sort
[7:22:55] of places has been on lot
[7:22:56] splits that allow two single
[7:22:57] family homes. So in their
[7:23:00] opinion, you know, they didn't
[7:23:02] feel like a six units to the
[7:23:06] acres sort of program was
[7:23:08] substantially different from
[7:23:09] what we would expect to see
[7:23:10] under the current provisions
[7:23:12] of sb nine. So they felt like
[7:23:14] that, you know, would be a
[7:23:15] concern now, you know, whatever
[7:23:18] council's decision is today and
[7:23:19] ultimately with implementation
[7:23:21] of a program, it doesn't mean
[7:23:23] that we're facing, you know,
[7:23:25] the immediate repercussions of,
[7:23:27] you know, decertification.
[7:23:29] there's a process associated
[7:23:30] with that that's baked into
[7:23:31] state law into the government
[7:23:34] code. You know, we would
[7:23:34] certainly have the opportunity
[7:23:35] to work with hpd to understand
[7:23:37] that. But I think it's
[7:23:39] important to understand that
[7:23:40] there is a risk that currently
[7:23:41] performing mid-cycle reviews
[7:23:43] with all of the cities that
[7:23:44] have, you know, housing
[7:23:46] elements we just got a call
[7:23:47] from them in july to do a
[7:23:49] mid-cycle review. As was noted,
[7:23:52] most cities are not performing
[7:23:54] on the delivery of housing on
[7:23:55] their arena number. So they are
[7:23:57] really focused on program
[7:23:59] performance. So when you look
[7:24:00] at some of the challenges that
[7:24:01] other cities have had with you
[7:24:03] know, all the way to
[7:24:04] decertification but also in
[7:24:06] just you know, noncompliance
[7:24:08] letters and some of the other
[7:24:09] challenges, it's really been
[7:24:11] around programing
[7:24:12] implementation rather than
[7:24:14] holding them to the minimum.
[7:24:18] all >> right. Thanks for that
[7:24:19] additional context from your
[7:24:20] conversations with each city. I
[7:24:22] think that's helpful. Okay. I
[7:24:23] know the mix reset I had
[7:24:26] councilmember cohen first and
[7:24:27] then I did not keep track
[7:24:28] of the rest but the mikes reset
[7:24:30] about two hours into public
[7:24:31] comment. So I'm going to go to
[7:24:32] councilor cohen next. Just
[7:24:35] before just before we
[7:24:37] go forward, I just want to make
[7:24:38] a note that I just I told >> on
[7:24:42] councilmember cohen I'm sorry
[7:24:43] he was first with the mikes
[7:24:45] reset. I'm going to go to
[7:24:46] councilmember calling first.
[7:24:47] thank you. >> well, thank you
[7:24:48] first of all to staff for all
[7:24:50] the work that's gone into it up
[7:24:51] to this point and thanks to all
[7:24:53] the members of the public who
[7:24:54] came out on both sides on all
[7:24:55] sides of this issue. It's not
[7:24:56] two sides. It's actually a lot
[7:24:58] in this proposal, a lot more
[7:24:59] than just one element although
[7:25:01] I know a lot of the interest is
[7:25:03] on the missing middle element.
[7:25:04] there's a lot in this and so I
[7:25:05] don't want to lose sight of the
[7:25:06] fact that this is a much more
[7:25:08] comprehensive look at the
[7:25:09] general plan than just this one
[7:25:10] issue of missing middle in
[7:25:11] residential neighborhoods. But
[7:25:14] I know that there's a lot
[7:25:16] of well-placed fears when when
[7:25:19] there's the potential to change
[7:25:20] zoning. And so I want to thank
[7:25:22] people who came out and and
[7:25:24] expressed that and sat through
[7:25:25] this long discussion of our
[7:25:26] meeting. I know many have gone
[7:25:27] home probably to listen online
[7:25:28] but I appreciate those who have
[7:25:29] stayed and want to listen to
[7:25:31] the rest of the conversation.
[7:25:33] I'm going to just start first
[7:25:35] of all just talking a little
[7:25:35] bit about the missing middle
[7:25:36] item and then talk about a
[7:25:38] couple of other things.
[7:25:38] although I want to point out I
[7:25:39] know some couple of commenters
[7:25:40] talked about the focus on areas
[7:25:43] where we want higher density
[7:25:44] and north san jose is one I
[7:25:46] represent north san jose.
[7:25:47] my focus regardless of how this
[7:25:48] moves forward will continue to
[7:25:49] be on bringing developers into
[7:25:51] north san jose to build high
[7:25:52] density housing where we want
[7:25:54] high density housing and I'm
[7:25:55] excited about several projects
[7:25:57] that are under construction now
[7:25:58] and coming that are in much
[7:26:00] higher density places. That's
[7:26:01] what we're going to get a lot
[7:26:02] of our housing units and will
[7:26:03] continue to be my focus. But I
[7:26:05] also want to point out that
[7:26:06] rightfully so our staff and
[7:26:08] myself are continued to focus
[7:26:10] on preserving commercial land
[7:26:13] in north san jose and not
[7:26:14] rushing to convert commercial
[7:26:16] land into the housing as well.
[7:26:18] we have a lot of land in north
[7:26:20] san jose that's designated for
[7:26:21] housing but our commercial land
[7:26:23] is really important to us and
[7:26:24] we don't want to lose it. You
[7:26:27] know there's there are concerns
[7:26:30] >> about what it looks like
[7:26:31] when people build this kind
[7:26:32] of this kind of multi-unit or
[7:26:35] turn a property from one house
[7:26:36] into several. And I just want
[7:26:38] to say in my district there are
[7:26:39] already some examples of some
[7:26:40] sites where people have used sb
[7:26:41] nine to subdivide and build 3
[7:26:45] to 5 units mostly three and
[7:26:47] four units on a single
[7:26:48] property. You can see them
[7:26:49] along piedmont road and a
[7:26:50] couple of places usually it's
[7:26:52] done where there's a
[7:26:53] dilapidated or vacant parcel
[7:26:56] very rare that someone's going
[7:26:57] to, you know, buy a $2.5
[7:26:59] million house and then decide
[7:27:00] to tear it down. I mean that's
[7:27:01] you know, economically I don't
[7:27:02] know that it works but a lot
[7:27:03] of this happens where there's
[7:27:05] something that needs to be
[7:27:06] replaced anyway. But you can
[7:27:09] see that these don't really
[7:27:11] change. This doesn't happen
[7:27:13] enough enough to change the
[7:27:14] overall character of the
[7:27:15] neighborhoods that that they're
[7:27:16] happening in. But I do
[7:27:17] appreciate your explanation as
[7:27:19] to why having our own procedure
[7:27:22] can actually allow us to
[7:27:24] implement better codes or
[7:27:25] requirements in the development
[7:27:27] because if people use sb nine
[7:27:28] we have no say over what a very
[7:27:30] little say over what those
[7:27:32] projects end up looking like.
[7:27:34] there are also neighborhoods in
[7:27:35] my district that are mostly
[7:27:36] single family but have >> 430
[7:27:38] to 40 years have had duplexes
[7:27:40] and fourplex in them so you can
[7:27:42] walk those neighborhoods and
[7:27:43] see that mix. Sometimes you
[7:27:45] don't even know that some
[7:27:46] of the buildings are fourplex
[7:27:48] versus the single family homes
[7:27:49] next door. So there are
[7:27:51] examples of neighborhoods where
[7:27:52] that mix is working. Having
[7:27:55] said that, we have 11 people on
[7:27:57] this council and I suspect
[7:27:58] there's 11 opinions as to what
[7:28:00] the right outcome is. So you
[7:28:02] will see that in the memo that
[7:28:04] I was part of along with mayor
[7:28:06] mehan and kosmas foley, casey
[7:28:08] and campos that we are asking
[7:28:11] for staff to do the analysis
[7:28:13] of a range of densities so that
[7:28:15] we have an understanding as to
[7:28:17] what the analysis tells us
[7:28:19] while we also working with hpd
[7:28:20] and continuing to gather public
[7:28:22] input. So our item asks for
[7:28:24] continuing to review 1624 and
[7:28:26] 32 as potential numbers and we
[7:28:30] obviously be having this
[7:28:31] conversation going forward.
[7:28:32] it's another six months at a
[7:28:35] minimum before we would be
[7:28:36] voting on some final outcome
[7:28:39] here. The other thing that was
[7:28:40] important to me and I know I
[7:28:42] heard from a lot of members
[7:28:43] of the public was this question
[7:28:44] of parking right now and this
[7:28:46] is something that's kind
[7:28:48] of lost in this conversation
[7:28:49] right now. There's many homes
[7:28:50] in our city because of the
[7:28:51] affordability issues where
[7:28:53] multiple families are living in
[7:28:54] a single family home. That's
[7:28:56] pretty much the same outcome as
[7:28:59] a four plex on a property with
[7:29:00] four families living in it. If
[7:29:01] you have a single family home
[7:29:03] with multiple families living
[7:29:04] in it, I would say it's
[7:29:06] preferable to have separate
[7:29:07] units for each of those
[7:29:08] families. So >> the result
[7:29:10] though and in case and I know
[7:29:11] some districts like district
[7:29:12] five are particularly impacted
[7:29:14] but all of our districts have
[7:29:15] it is that there is not parking
[7:29:17] and we end up with this parking
[7:29:19] problem where multiple families
[7:29:20] are living in single family
[7:29:21] homes now we have parking
[7:29:23] overflowing. We have issues on
[7:29:25] the streets based on that
[7:29:26] experience I feel that it's
[7:29:28] important for us to outside
[7:29:31] of the state restricted areas
[7:29:33] to create a parking standard.
[7:29:35] and my understanding I think
[7:29:36] you kind of said this before is
[7:29:37] that those who are doing this
[7:29:39] now are typically including
[7:29:41] parking. Can you clarify this?
[7:29:42] but typically including parking
[7:29:44] because they want a sellable
[7:29:45] marketable product when they're
[7:29:47] done? That's correct. Yeah. The
[7:29:48] examples we've seen so far have
[7:29:50] included parking and again when
[7:29:51] we removed our parking minimums
[7:29:54] part of that conversation was
[7:29:56] that the market would adjust to
[7:29:58] provide the appropriate parking
[7:29:59] and you know we've seen
[7:30:01] examples where that's gone both
[7:30:03] ways but in instances like this
[7:30:05] we've seen it always provide
[7:30:06] at >> least clearly in the
[7:30:07] higher density projects there's
[7:30:09] still there's still some
[7:30:10] experimentation that that's
[7:30:11] happening. But I think in these
[7:30:13] lower density sites that it's
[7:30:14] typical that they're wanting to
[7:30:16] provide at least one parking
[7:30:17] space for each unit that
[7:30:18] they're building already. So
[7:30:19] I'm going >> to try to craft
[7:30:20] out of all the memos and I
[7:30:21] appreciate all the all of my
[7:30:23] colleagues on the council for
[7:30:24] all the work that they've done
[7:30:26] on various things and I'm going
[7:30:27] to put together a motion
[7:30:31] combining >> a whole lot
[7:30:32] of stuff and leaving some
[7:30:34] openings for additional
[7:30:35] conversation on some of the
[7:30:36] things that I'm not clear on in
[7:30:37] other people's memos. >> first
[7:30:40] moving the the full group memo
[7:30:43] >> that that I was part of that
[7:30:45] includes the parking not
[7:30:46] parking it number the range
[7:30:49] of explanation of the range
[7:30:50] of densities pickup and I'm
[7:30:53] going to make a quick comment
[7:30:54] about pickup while I'm on it
[7:30:55] though there's been some
[7:30:58] discussion about blanket
[7:31:00] rezoning of pickup properties.
[7:31:02] I think it's important for us
[7:31:03] to to continue to have that
[7:31:06] message out there that in the
[7:31:07] long run there will be a
[7:31:09] certain amount of pickup
[7:31:10] properties that are necessary
[7:31:12] as we hope that more
[7:31:13] affordability gets in place and
[7:31:14] more children come back into
[7:31:15] our communities. We shouldn't
[7:31:18] encourage the wholesale loss
[7:31:20] of pickup lands and so I think
[7:31:21] a thoughtful process for each
[7:31:22] peak conversion is important
[7:31:24] but I think an expedited
[7:31:26] process to do that pickup
[7:31:28] conversion would be helpful to
[7:31:30] people who want to make that
[7:31:31] conversion. But there's a
[7:31:32] couple of items here on pickup.
[7:31:33] there's also a specific item in
[7:31:35] south san jose. Our item number
[7:31:37] two in our memo for a the
[7:31:39] property at coral on coral road
[7:31:42] in district two >> in the memo
[7:31:44] from candela ahi and or ts I'm
[7:31:48] going to at this point include
[7:31:50] item 1ai1 which is the moderate
[7:31:55] fire severity zones making sure
[7:31:56] that we are taking that into
[7:31:57] account in our in our plans
[7:32:01] because I know that some of our
[7:32:02] districts in the hillsides
[7:32:03] particularly have that issue
[7:32:04] and some of them don't have a
[7:32:06] lot of ways in or out of those
[7:32:07] neighborhoods. So it's
[7:32:07] important for us to take that
[7:32:09] into account. >> the one be in
[7:32:15] that memo include one, be in
[7:32:17] that memo on one, see, I'm
[7:32:19] going to I'm going to probably
[7:32:20] ask councilmember kay later to
[7:32:22] make some clarification.
[7:32:24] my motion at this point will
[7:32:26] ask that we don't rezone as was
[7:32:28] recommended by the planning
[7:32:30] department because
[7:32:32] my understanding from their
[7:32:33] explanation is that the the
[7:32:36] moon designation would actually
[7:32:38] potentially underutilized some
[7:32:40] properties on that on that
[7:32:42] place but leaving it the way it
[7:32:43] is would allow side by side
[7:32:44] discussions about appropriate
[7:32:46] uses. But we can discuss that
[7:32:48] as we move forward >> include
[7:32:51] item d and e from the memo and
[7:32:56] on f. Well I support the idea
[7:32:59] >> we will bring will be
[7:33:00] included and included in the
[7:33:02] october 6th discussion from pbc
[7:33:04] on the overall set
[7:33:05] of priorities of all the work
[7:33:06] that they've been asked to do.
[7:33:08] so we will include that but it
[7:33:09] would go to that the priority
[7:33:11] session on that at that time
[7:33:15] and the memo from tordillos and
[7:33:17] may I we I did not have the
[7:33:20] benefit of being part of the
[7:33:21] brown act to understand number
[7:33:23] one as well as I should and get
[7:33:25] a full feel for the rationale
[7:33:27] and all the thought so I'm
[7:33:28] leaving it out of the motion
[7:33:29] but offering the opportunity
[7:33:31] for the members of that brown
[7:33:33] act or the members of that the
[7:33:34] authors of that memo to provide
[7:33:36] context and we'll consider that
[7:33:39] one independently include item
[7:33:42] number two changing the >> word
[7:33:44] develop to explore and include
[7:33:47] number three and on number four
[7:33:53] include it with the caveat that
[7:33:55] I would like a better
[7:33:56] clarification of the definition
[7:33:58] of downtown. I'm a little
[7:33:59] concerned about how wide
[7:34:00] ranging it could be and and
[7:34:02] exactly what that means. So
[7:34:04] leaving it open for us to
[7:34:06] discuss the actual definition
[7:34:08] in the motion and then item
[7:34:10] five one would be included as
[7:34:13] part of our number which number
[7:34:18] was that? Our our number are
[7:34:20] one >> pc0 sorry 11c so
[7:34:24] basically it's the same thing
[7:34:25] allowing the commercial and
[7:34:27] then including these
[7:34:28] restrictions on that commercial
[7:34:30] as part of you would include
[7:34:31] the sub point include the sub
[7:34:32] point as part of our one c in
[7:34:34] our underlying memo. So that's
[7:34:37] the that's the motion that I
[7:34:39] put on the floor. Thank you. Oh
[7:34:41] yeah, sure. On >> our memo what
[7:34:44] did you say about one d and >>
[7:34:49] I, I included danny yeah as as
[7:34:52] written. >> okay. I think
[7:34:55] that's a great basis for
[7:34:56] discussion and I appreciate
[7:34:59] that. Councilor don, I know you
[7:35:04] had also I think you got out
[7:35:05] of line there when we had the
[7:35:06] confusion a moment ago so I'll
[7:35:08] let you go and go next and then
[7:35:09] I'm going to go through the
[7:35:10] order I have on my screen. But
[7:35:11] go ahead, councilor one >> I
[7:35:13] appreciate that mayor how well
[7:35:16] I support two san jose goal to
[7:35:18] have producing more housing and
[7:35:19] recognized a needs for
[7:35:21] additional housing option.
[7:35:24] my concern is whether we built
[7:35:26] housing it is where and how we
[7:35:29] add these density >> and
[7:35:32] particularly concerns about the
[7:35:34] impact of the proposed
[7:35:36] implementation of p dash 35 and
[7:35:40] missing middle housing on
[7:35:42] establish single family
[7:35:44] neighborhood and district >>
[7:35:45] £0.07 >> 35 call for expanding
[7:35:48] opportunity for small multi
[7:35:51] housing multifamily housing
[7:35:54] generally 4 to 10 units but the
[7:35:56] original policy contemplate
[7:35:59] strategically location
[7:36:01] including major street urban
[7:36:04] village area transition area
[7:36:07] and other location appropriate
[7:36:09] for additional density. I am
[7:36:13] concerned that >> the current
[7:36:14] four year review could take
[7:36:16] that concept much further by
[7:36:19] substantially increasing
[7:36:21] development capacity throughout
[7:36:22] residential neighborhood area
[7:36:26] before doing >> that, council
[7:36:27] should clearly establish
[7:36:29] whether this broader approach
[7:36:31] is actually necessary to
[7:36:33] accomplish the goal of p 35. It
[7:36:37] >> changed from predominantly
[7:36:39] one home per parcel to the
[7:36:42] possibility of 4 to 10 units
[7:36:44] per parcel is not simply an
[7:36:47] increase of housing supply. It
[7:36:50] >> can fundamentally change the
[7:36:51] physical characters of the
[7:36:53] neighborhood. Speaking
[7:36:55] specifically to district seven,
[7:36:57] the city has designated area
[7:36:59] for substantial growth and
[7:37:01] redevelopment. I want the staff
[7:37:04] to explain why additional >>
[7:37:06] density needs to be broadly
[7:37:08] distributed across establish >>
[7:37:11] residential neighborhood rather
[7:37:13] than concentrate on more growth
[7:37:16] along major corridor transit,
[7:37:20] urban village and other areas
[7:37:22] already plan for greater
[7:37:23] intensity different
[7:37:26] neighborhoods have different
[7:37:27] street worth infrastructure
[7:37:29] transit access and existing
[7:37:32] density. A citywide standard
[7:37:36] may not produce a proper result
[7:37:38] in every single neighborhood.
[7:37:42] my memorandum proposed a four
[7:37:47] weeks delay on this item for
[7:37:51] staff to return. Would it clear
[7:37:55] to the lack of information and
[7:37:58] or misinformation causing or
[7:38:01] resident concerns such as
[7:38:02] increased traffic, parking,
[7:38:05] congestion overcrowding,
[7:38:08] property value and change in
[7:38:10] the neighborhood? Characters?
[7:38:14] and I think that we need to
[7:38:17] make it even more transparency
[7:38:19] c to reduce >> the amount
[7:38:21] of confusion especially an
[7:38:24] overwhelming letter that was
[7:38:27] sent in from the public
[7:38:28] comments saying no and the
[7:38:30] government should not interfere
[7:38:32] with the free market therefore
[7:38:35] we need more time so >>
[7:38:38] therefore I move to have in
[7:38:40] substitution >> to >> approve
[7:38:45] my memorandums for a 30 days
[7:38:51] setback to reset to engage >>
[7:38:54] more with our constituent to
[7:38:57] make sure we hear and
[7:38:58] understand what their concern
[7:39:01] and end of the day there is a
[7:39:04] very legit argument that our
[7:39:08] constituent voters in to be
[7:39:12] their representation >> and I
[7:39:15] asked for a second >> right to
[7:39:19] have a second on the substitute
[7:39:21] I'm not hearing any you did I
[7:39:25] did hear a question for staff
[7:39:26] in there did you? Yes, I do and
[7:39:28] let me you want to ask that as
[7:39:30] to staff question on this why
[7:39:35] >> isn't the city concentrate
[7:39:36] more of the additional housing
[7:39:38] capacity in the existing growth
[7:39:40] area like urban villages, major
[7:39:43] corridor corridors, transit
[7:39:46] before changing the development
[7:39:48] pattern of the established
[7:39:51] neighborhood. So again,
[7:39:56] councilmember and maybe I'll
[7:39:57] let the team answer this as
[7:39:58] well but you know we continue
[7:40:01] to believe that growth in our
[7:40:03] growth areas and urban villages
[7:40:05] along the transit corridors and
[7:40:07] you know, major arterials is
[7:40:09] absolutely the the right way to
[7:40:12] go. There's you know, a
[7:40:13] considerable amount of housing
[7:40:15] capacity already contained in
[7:40:17] those areas and we have over I
[7:40:21] think it's over 26,000 units
[7:40:23] entitled throughout the city
[7:40:25] for various different types
[7:40:26] of housing development. And I
[7:40:27] think what we're trying to
[7:40:28] achieve with this policy is a
[7:40:31] diversity of housing type. So
[7:40:33] really sort of address that gap
[7:40:35] where we don't have an
[7:40:37] opportunity for this well you
[7:40:40] know it is an increase in
[7:40:41] density. We would still
[7:40:42] consider this lower density
[7:40:45] than some of those other areas.
[7:40:47] we don't have opportunity for
[7:40:48] these types of developments
[7:40:49] around the city where you can
[7:40:50] see, you know, rowhouses or
[7:40:52] town townhomes or small
[7:40:53] apartment blocks. So you know,
[7:40:55] we don't want to go back and
[7:40:57] reduce the density in any
[7:40:58] of those growth areas to allow
[7:41:00] for this type of development.
[7:41:02] so we're looking for other
[7:41:03] opportunities is and you know,
[7:41:05] the most the most practical
[7:41:09] alternative is to find a
[7:41:10] solution that's in keeping with
[7:41:11] the neighborhood character in
[7:41:12] our single family districts and
[7:41:14] allow this you know what some
[7:41:15] people refer to as gentle
[7:41:17] density throughout the city in
[7:41:19] a way that sort of equitable.
[7:41:22] if I could just add to
[7:41:24] councilmember jared ferguson,
[7:41:25] principal planner, something we
[7:41:27] haven't spent a ton of time
[7:41:28] talking about but chris
[7:41:29] mentioned in his presentation a
[7:41:31] key point of what we were
[7:41:32] undergoing in this for you
[7:41:33] review is also a part of our
[7:41:34] housing element to evaluate our
[7:41:36] urban village strategy. It was
[7:41:38] something mentioned in the
[7:41:39] letter from hpd that they were
[7:41:41] going to be monitoring but how
[7:41:42] we could improve and speed up
[7:41:44] how we do our urban village
[7:41:45] plans because it is still an
[7:41:47] emphasis that we do want to see
[7:41:48] continued housing production in
[7:41:50] those areas. But how do we
[7:41:52] speed up the completion of the
[7:41:54] plans for the 40 plus village
[7:41:55] that haven't been planned since
[7:41:58] 2011? So >> it is still a very
[7:42:00] key and important aspect of how
[7:42:02] we're going to produce housing.
[7:42:04] but this is an additional
[7:42:06] strategy to to produce units
[7:42:07] above and beyond that. Thank
[7:42:09] you for that explanation. But I
[7:42:11] understand that even though we
[7:42:12] estimated at 26,000 housing
[7:42:15] toward the transit and the
[7:42:17] major corridors but we haven't
[7:42:19] seen those fruition >> until we
[7:42:23] see the fruition we we can't
[7:42:25] put the horse >> and the cart
[7:42:27] before the horse. We have to
[7:42:29] take one >> step at a time. We
[7:42:32] see those fruition then we can
[7:42:34] go okay, we can take the next
[7:42:36] steps and I think it's
[7:42:38] important that again I want to
[7:42:41] make sure that even though
[7:42:44] there's no one second
[7:42:46] my substitution, I want to make
[7:42:48] sure that the communication,
[7:42:50] the transparency to our
[7:42:52] residents out there continues
[7:42:55] as we move forward. >> thank
[7:42:57] you so much. Thanks,
[7:43:00] councilmember and I appreciate
[7:43:01] your emphasis on public input
[7:43:02] which is why I also asked some
[7:43:03] questions about how many town
[7:43:06] halls and other outreach
[7:43:07] opportunities have we had so
[7:43:08] far and then over the next six
[7:43:10] months or so, what's the
[7:43:12] expectation for actually doing
[7:43:13] even more because we certainly
[7:43:15] don't want residents to come
[7:43:16] here a year a year from now and
[7:43:17] feel like they didn't have
[7:43:18] ample opportunity to really
[7:43:20] learn and engage and give
[7:43:21] input. All right. Thank you,
[7:43:23] councilor. Let's go now to
[7:43:25] councilmember claudius. >>
[7:43:28] thank you, mayor. And thank you
[7:43:29] everyone from the public who
[7:43:30] came out to speak today and
[7:43:31] provided comments online even
[7:43:33] though there are again a
[7:43:34] diversity of opinions in the
[7:43:35] room today. And I also want to
[7:43:36] thank members of the planning
[7:43:38] commission and planning staff
[7:43:39] who've been working on this for
[7:43:40] the better part of a year to
[7:43:42] get us to this point. You know,
[7:43:43] as I was preparing for today's
[7:43:45] meeting I saw a headline that I
[7:43:46] think really for me put the
[7:43:47] stakes of these sorts
[7:43:48] of decisions into context. I
[7:43:50] think some of the public
[7:43:50] commenters referenced that as
[7:43:52] well and it was around the
[7:43:53] publication of the 2026 silicon
[7:43:55] valley pain index and that
[7:43:57] report leads off with a pretty
[7:43:59] sobering statistic which is
[7:44:00] that there was yet another
[7:44:01] study that identified san jose
[7:44:04] as the least affordable city to
[7:44:05] purchase a home anywhere in the
[7:44:07] world. So I know throughout the
[7:44:09] public comment tonight there
[7:44:10] was a lot of talk about the
[7:44:11] american dream and what that
[7:44:12] means and I personally don't
[7:44:14] think that we can sit up here
[7:44:15] and pretend as if the american
[7:44:16] dream is alive and well when
[7:44:18] homeownership is so out
[7:44:19] of reach for so many of our
[7:44:21] residents here in san jose and
[7:44:24] even amongst those who do
[7:44:25] manage to purchase homes, data
[7:44:27] from the american community
[7:44:28] survey shows that over a third
[7:44:29] of homeowners in san jose are
[7:44:31] currently cost burdened and the
[7:44:32] story is far worse for renters
[7:44:34] with data showing that well
[7:44:35] over half of renters in our
[7:44:37] city are rent burdened. I've
[7:44:39] said it before and >> I'll say
[7:44:39] it again that in my limited
[7:44:41] time in this office addressing
[7:44:43] our housing affordability
[7:44:44] crisis is my number one
[7:44:45] priority and the fact is that
[7:44:47] we know that the root cause >>
[7:44:48] of that crisis is a severe lack
[7:44:50] of housing. At the same time we
[7:44:52] know that the city continues to
[7:44:54] fall dramatically short of all
[7:44:55] of our housing goals so far
[7:44:57] with the most recent progress
[7:44:58] report, we're on track to meet
[7:45:00] about one third of our rina >>
[7:45:01] obligation foley acknowledging
[7:45:03] that other cities are also
[7:45:04] struggling in that department.
[7:45:06] but with that translates to is
[7:45:07] a shortfall of about 40,000
[7:45:09] homes and critically this is
[7:45:11] not some recent trend that we
[7:45:13] can just attribute to the
[7:45:14] pandemic or to the current
[7:45:15] interest rate environment or to
[7:45:17] tariffs driving up the cost
[7:45:18] of materials. This is a trend
[7:45:20] that has held for many years
[7:45:23] and we've missed our housing
[7:45:24] targets by a significant margin
[7:45:26] every single year since 2014.
[7:45:29] and to me that means that we do
[7:45:30] need to look at new strategies.
[7:45:32] I want to acknowledge that many
[7:45:33] of the commenters here today
[7:45:34] did clarify that they're not
[7:45:36] opposed to all new housing.
[7:45:37] they just question if it needs
[7:45:38] to be happening in their
[7:45:39] neighborhoods. And I think
[7:45:40] folks have raised some very
[7:45:41] well reasoned questions about
[7:45:43] why we can't just meet our
[7:45:45] housing goals or whether we
[7:45:46] can't meet those goals by just
[7:45:47] focusing on construction in our
[7:45:49] urban villages and in downtown.
[7:45:51] but I think that our history in
[7:45:53] this domain has shown that the
[7:45:54] honest answer to that question
[7:45:56] is that no, we cannot. That
[7:45:58] focus on trying to funnel
[7:45:59] nearly all new housing growth
[7:46:01] in our city into a tiny sliver
[7:46:03] of our land has been the
[7:46:05] dominant strategy that we have
[7:46:06] pursued for housing growth
[7:46:07] since the adoption of our
[7:46:08] current general plan back in
[7:46:10] 2011. And I think if we are
[7:46:11] being honest with ourselves
[7:46:13] that strategy has largely
[7:46:14] failed and it is the most
[7:46:15] vulnerable residents in our
[7:46:17] community who have
[7:46:17] disproportionately borne the
[7:46:19] price of that failure. So to
[7:46:21] me I think it's clear we need
[7:46:22] to be open to new approaches
[7:46:23] here and I think as a city we
[7:46:25] need to move past the notion
[7:46:26] that somehow we're going to
[7:46:27] meet all of the new housing
[7:46:28] need for a city of a million
[7:46:29] people on just the without ever
[7:46:32] touching the 80 or 90% of land
[7:46:34] that is currently zoned to only
[7:46:36] allow single family homes. You
[7:46:38] know, folks have rightfully
[7:46:39] questioned what this might mean
[7:46:41] in terms of changes to their
[7:46:42] neighborhood. I know my husband
[7:46:43] gave public comment and he
[7:46:44] noted that we live in between a
[7:46:47] six plex and a five plex on a
[7:46:49] block that has about half
[7:46:50] single family homes and half
[7:46:51] small apartment buildings. I
[7:46:52] don't think that I've
[7:46:53] personally seen in
[7:46:54] my experience the sorts
[7:46:55] of quality life concerns that
[7:46:56] some folks are concerned about.
[7:46:58] but change is scary. But I will
[7:47:00] just say that rejecting this
[7:47:01] proposal will not prevent our
[7:47:03] neighborhoods from changing.
[7:47:04] all it will do is further the
[7:47:06] trends that we are already
[7:47:07] seeing with growing
[7:47:08] homelessness continued
[7:47:09] displacement of our most
[7:47:10] vulnerable residents. We will
[7:47:12] continue to see the strain on
[7:47:14] all of our teachers >> and our
[7:47:15] public workers and our police
[7:47:16] officers who can't afford to >>
[7:47:18] live in the cities that they
[7:47:19] serve. And we'll see the
[7:47:20] continuing impacts on families
[7:47:22] as young people are priced out
[7:47:24] of >> the city because they
[7:47:25] realize that they can't afford
[7:47:26] to raise children here. I also
[7:47:27] think it is important that we
[7:47:28] as a council move forward with
[7:47:29] this proposal on missing little
[7:47:32] housing today. I did want >> to
[7:47:34] just touch on a couple of the
[7:47:35] things that I heard because I
[7:47:36] think there's been a lot
[7:47:36] of confusion and misinformation
[7:47:38] around some of these proposals.
[7:47:40] you know, we repeatedly heard
[7:47:41] people referencing 16 unit
[7:47:43] apartment buildings, 20 unit
[7:47:44] apartment buildings, people
[7:47:45] saying that this will make us
[7:47:46] denser than new york city. I
[7:47:48] just want to be absolutely
[7:47:48] crystal clear that that is not
[7:47:50] what this proposal is about.
[7:47:52] for the vast majority of the
[7:47:53] single family lots in the city,
[7:47:54] this proposal will translate to
[7:47:56] a modest increase over what is
[7:47:57] already allowed under state law
[7:47:59] as the mayor outlined most
[7:48:00] likely 2 to 6 primary homes on
[7:48:02] most parcels throughout the
[7:48:04] city. >> and we have also heard
[7:48:05] that this proposal was extreme
[7:48:07] but it is way out of alignment
[7:48:09] with what other major cities
[7:48:10] are doing to tackle our housing
[7:48:11] crisis. I don't think that that
[7:48:13] is borne out in the data that
[7:48:15] I've seen and if anything I
[7:48:16] think that the program that
[7:48:17] we're proposing here is
[7:48:18] actually much more modest than
[7:48:20] what some other cities are
[7:48:21] doing. A couple of years ago
[7:48:23] washington state passed a law
[7:48:24] that legalized six units per
[7:48:26] single family parcel in every
[7:48:27] single major city in the state.
[7:48:29] and here in california,
[7:48:31] san diego already allows seven
[7:48:32] units per single person single
[7:48:34] family home parcel >> which
[7:48:35] works out to about 30 to 50
[7:48:37] dwelling units per acre more
[7:48:38] than we're proposing here in
[7:48:40] berkeley as was mentioned about
[7:48:41] 70 dwelling units per acre more
[7:48:43] than double what san jose is
[7:48:44] evaluating and sacramento has
[7:48:46] no density cap at all. On the
[7:48:48] missing middle programs in
[7:48:49] their residential zones
[7:48:50] allowing ten or more units on
[7:48:51] single family lots. And finally
[7:48:54] I just want to speak to this
[7:48:54] notion that this is not a
[7:48:56] required program. You know,
[7:48:58] staff has already spoke to the
[7:48:59] risk of decertification by hpd
[7:49:02] and I agree that that is not
[7:49:03] something that would be
[7:49:04] immediate but I do think it is
[7:49:05] a very real risk. The city made
[7:49:07] very clear commitments in our
[7:49:08] housing element that we would
[7:49:09] allow 4 to 10 units on parcels
[7:49:11] throughout the city. We provide
[7:49:13] additional metrics in terms
[7:49:14] of how many total additional
[7:49:16] residential units of capacity
[7:49:18] would be added. And I reached
[7:49:20] out to the housing
[7:49:21] accountability chief with hpd
[7:49:23] myself and said point blank if
[7:49:25] the city tries to walk back its
[7:49:26] commitments here, if we don't
[7:49:27] move forward with this program
[7:49:29] or if we try to downscale the
[7:49:30] program below what was
[7:49:31] committed in the housing
[7:49:32] element, would that be grounds
[7:49:34] for decertification? And she
[7:49:35] said quote yes. Should the city
[7:49:37] choose not to implement the
[7:49:37] housing programs it should can
[7:49:39] review the inaction and revoke
[7:49:40] its finding of compliance. So I
[7:49:42] think that the >> potential
[7:49:43] ramifications here we cannot
[7:49:45] pretend as if they are
[7:49:46] imaginary. Finally, since I
[7:49:48] know there were some questions
[7:49:49] about the memo from myself and
[7:49:51] council member committee, I
[7:49:52] want to speak to a couple
[7:49:53] of those items. I think the one
[7:49:55] that we are most excited about
[7:49:56] or I'm most excited about I
[7:49:57] won't speak for my colleague is
[7:49:59] the local density bonus
[7:50:01] program. And I think it's
[7:50:02] actually timely that we are
[7:50:03] hearing this item now because
[7:50:05] we just saw with item 10.2 a
[7:50:07] missing middle housing
[7:50:09] application that we're actually
[7:50:10] leveraging state density bonus
[7:50:12] law and with that application
[7:50:14] we saw that they waived height
[7:50:15] limits, they waived
[7:50:16] requirements around lot
[7:50:17] coverage, they waived setbacks.
[7:50:19] they basically got to just
[7:50:20] ignore all of the local
[7:50:21] development >> standards that
[7:50:23] we as a city set. So the idea
[7:50:25] behind this program is that
[7:50:27] since legally the city cannot
[7:50:29] prevent >> builders from
[7:50:30] pursuing this state density >>
[7:50:31] bonus but what we could do is
[7:50:34] provide an appealing local
[7:50:35] alternative >> density bonus
[7:50:37] program that actually does
[7:50:38] preserve local control. So that
[7:50:40] is the intent of what is
[7:50:41] recommended in our memo. We can
[7:50:43] set up an alternative local
[7:50:45] pathway that they can pursue
[7:50:47] that does require that
[7:50:48] applicants adhere to local
[7:50:49] development standards things
[7:50:51] like building heights setbacks
[7:50:52] and open space requirements.
[7:50:54] and we can use that to provide
[7:50:55] an incentive for builders
[7:50:56] of missing little programs to
[7:50:58] actually make sure that they're
[7:50:59] building missing little
[7:50:59] projects that are a good fit
[7:51:01] for our community. And then
[7:51:03] just speaking again on the
[7:51:06] increased height limits that
[7:51:07] are proposed near downtown
[7:51:08] transit hubs, I'm fairly open
[7:51:10] minded here. I would defer to
[7:51:12] staff in terms of what they
[7:51:13] evaluate as appropriate here.
[7:51:15] we have been primarily trying
[7:51:16] to target the kind of highest
[7:51:18] capacity transit nodes that are
[7:51:20] already in existing denser
[7:51:22] neighborhoods that have kind
[7:51:24] of well connected
[7:51:25] pedestrianized grid networks.
[7:51:27] understanding that some
[7:51:28] of those, you know, peripheral
[7:51:30] downtown transit hubs are close
[7:51:31] to the freeway. Maybe there is
[7:51:33] not a clear walking path to
[7:51:34] actually get to the other side
[7:51:35] of the freeway. So we would
[7:51:37] just recommend that staff come
[7:51:38] back with some recommendations
[7:51:39] around this specific subset
[7:51:41] of downtown downtown transit
[7:51:43] stations that they think would
[7:51:44] be appropriate for this kind
[7:51:45] of increased but still
[7:51:46] transitional height limit
[7:51:48] of 45ft. So with >> oh sorry I
[7:51:51] was just going to say I'm going
[7:51:52] to take those those sound like
[7:51:53] friendly amendments. I want to
[7:51:54] give you and councilor cohen an
[7:51:55] opportunity to maybe dialog and
[7:51:57] see if that gets you. >>
[7:51:58] absolutely. I was going to
[7:51:59] request a friendly amendment
[7:52:00] for the elements that were left
[7:52:02] out of the original motion
[7:52:03] which I believe is item one and
[7:52:06] item four >> and four wasn't
[7:52:09] left out. I put it in but I
[7:52:10] just want to make sure there's
[7:52:11] clarification and I, I guess I
[7:52:12] can ask staff on this one it's
[7:52:14] I mean I don't want to
[7:52:15] wordsmith and try to decide
[7:52:16] what downtown means today but
[7:52:19] you would interpret this to
[7:52:20] mean you would come back with a
[7:52:21] reasonable program that would
[7:52:22] allow some flexibility on where
[7:52:24] the boundaries are, where it
[7:52:25] would apply. That's correct.
[7:52:27] okay. So that's I mean we
[7:52:28] already included that one. The
[7:52:29] other one I just want to ask
[7:52:30] the question so the advantage
[7:52:31] of this is a >> a speed
[7:52:34] question. They could do it
[7:52:35] faster >> than they could with
[7:52:36] the state density bonus or
[7:52:37] what's the well, I guess I just
[7:52:39] was curious about what would
[7:52:40] lead somebody to choose the
[7:52:41] local versus the state density
[7:52:43] bonus. I think a component
[7:52:45] of it could be speed. I think
[7:52:46] it could also be based on what
[7:52:48] other other requirements staff
[7:52:49] would recommend including as
[7:52:51] criteria for pursuing the local
[7:52:53] path. I think we would need
[7:52:55] something if we're going to ask
[7:52:56] developers to kind of waive the
[7:52:58] ability to exceed local design
[7:53:00] standards. So maybe that means
[7:53:02] that we adjust the
[7:53:03] affordability thresholds to tap
[7:53:04] into the density bonus program.
[7:53:06] maybe it means a faster
[7:53:07] guaranteed many ministerial
[7:53:09] permit timeline. I just think
[7:53:10] that it would be valuable to
[7:53:11] have a local alternative so
[7:53:13] that we don't see all of these
[7:53:13] projects just tapping into
[7:53:15] state density bonus law to
[7:53:16] exceed any development
[7:53:17] standards that staff comes up
[7:53:19] with in partnership with our >>
[7:53:20] communities. I think it's an
[7:53:21] intriguing >> idea. Let me just
[7:53:22] ask one question of staff on
[7:53:23] this one. You know, there's a
[7:53:25] lot of stuff being loaded on
[7:53:26] here. There's a lot of other
[7:53:26] stuff being worked on. So just
[7:53:27] what is your feeling about what
[7:53:30] this does to the timeline
[7:53:31] of this or the your your
[7:53:33] ability to to create such a
[7:53:35] program as well also doing all
[7:53:37] the other things that are being
[7:53:38] asked for >> here. So so we
[7:53:41] agree there's a lot
[7:53:42] of opportunity here and I
[7:53:43] actually think you know there's
[7:53:44] a lot of really good work for
[7:53:46] us to do. Obviously would love
[7:53:48] to be able to do it all as
[7:53:49] quickly as possible. So we're
[7:53:51] currently in the process
[7:53:52] of doing that analysis so we
[7:53:54] can come back on october 6th to
[7:53:56] have the conversation. I think
[7:53:58] part of that was waiting for
[7:53:59] this conversation so we could
[7:54:00] see what kind of gets added.
[7:54:02] some of it gets sequenced in
[7:54:04] right and there's a sequential
[7:54:05] aspect. Some of it needs to be
[7:54:06] prioritized and we have to make
[7:54:08] choices of some aspects ahead
[7:54:10] of others. So I think, you
[7:54:12] know, we'll need to hear how
[7:54:14] the conversation goes and then
[7:54:15] come back on october 6th with a
[7:54:17] sort of full analysis. But
[7:54:18] again, I think it would fit
[7:54:20] within that context and and you
[7:54:23] know, it's appropriate for us
[7:54:24] to look at it though. So so >>
[7:54:25] I will accept it with the
[7:54:26] understanding. I think that
[7:54:28] amongst the dozens of things we
[7:54:30] have asked over the years for
[7:54:31] this department to handle, we
[7:54:32] will be prioritizing all
[7:54:33] of those in october and this
[7:54:35] will be part of that
[7:54:35] conversation. So that would be
[7:54:38] yeah, I foley expect that this
[7:54:39] should be prioritized alongside
[7:54:41] everything else on staff's, you
[7:54:42] know, hefty plate. The only
[7:54:44] other thing that we'll note and
[7:54:45] we noted this in the memo as
[7:54:46] well is that another housing
[7:54:47] element program that the city
[7:54:48] did commit to was evaluating
[7:54:50] expanding our at the local
[7:54:51] density >> bonus opportunities.
[7:54:54] so we think that this is
[7:54:54] actually aligned with existing
[7:54:56] work that staff has already
[7:54:56] tentatively committed to for
[7:54:58] 2027 in the housing >> element.
[7:54:59] >> I got to ask this. Sorry I
[7:55:02] have to ask the second or if
[7:55:04] she'll accept this so so you're
[7:55:05] >> accepting it as a friendly
[7:55:07] amendment? I'm concerned about
[7:55:08] the scope that it's adding on
[7:55:10] to staff and I just hate to add
[7:55:14] something to staff and then
[7:55:15] come back on october 2nd six
[7:55:18] and we all say oh yeah, that's
[7:55:19] too much. And now we've taken
[7:55:21] it away. What's your what's
[7:55:23] your. I mean if it says to be
[7:55:26] reviewed as a priority in
[7:55:28] october 6th I'm happy with
[7:55:29] that. >> yeah, I think that
[7:55:31] makes sense to us. Again, we
[7:55:33] have to there's a let me pause
[7:55:36] for a second. There's obviously
[7:55:38] a finite capacity into how much
[7:55:40] work we can get done. You know,
[7:55:42] certainly within the next six
[7:55:43] months we have plans and our
[7:55:44] work plan across the next 3 to
[7:55:46] 5 years. You know, really what
[7:55:49] we're looking at is is not to
[7:55:50] sort of say none of this is
[7:55:52] good work. It's about how does
[7:55:53] it sequence and how does it fit
[7:55:55] together. And that's really the
[7:55:56] priority conversation that
[7:55:57] we'll be having in october.
[7:55:59] it's not to say hey, throw all
[7:56:01] of this stuff out. We don't
[7:56:02] want to do it anymore. It's
[7:56:03] about hey, we really need to do
[7:56:04] this work up front. So you
[7:56:06] know, probably highest priority
[7:56:09] for us is the work that we will
[7:56:10] sort of get out of this
[7:56:11] conversation to move forward
[7:56:13] those programs in the existing
[7:56:14] housing element and prepare us
[7:56:16] for the next housing element as
[7:56:17] well as anything that touches
[7:56:19] existing state laws that we're
[7:56:20] trying to implement. So we
[7:56:21] would fit it in within that
[7:56:23] context and then look at the
[7:56:24] rest of you know, what's on the
[7:56:25] plate to make a best guess
[7:56:28] at how that then sequences
[7:56:29] after. >> oh okay. All except
[7:56:32] it in in those terms. But it's
[7:56:36] very complicated and for for
[7:56:39] me to understand it I'm having
[7:56:41] a hard time getting my head
[7:56:43] around what the implications
[7:56:45] are, what are the unintended
[7:56:46] unintended consequences of it
[7:56:48] so I think by october 6th when
[7:56:51] it comes back we'll be able to
[7:56:53] have more of a discussion about
[7:56:54] unintended consequences of it.
[7:56:56] but but for now I'll accept it
[7:56:58] as a friendly amendment. Okay.
[7:57:00] and councilor >> richards, you
[7:57:02] had the floor. Was that your
[7:57:03] last your last piece? Okay,
[7:57:04] great. So I'm going to turn now
[7:57:05] to thank you and I'll turn to
[7:57:07] councilmember condell us. Thank
[7:57:10] >> you, mayor. First of all,
[7:57:12] thank you to chris and your
[7:57:13] staff for the work today and
[7:57:15] also for the presentation this
[7:57:17] evening as as well as to
[7:57:18] my brown art group for >> their
[7:57:20] conversation and engagement and
[7:57:22] policy debate that we had the
[7:57:24] last couple of weeks. And you
[7:57:26] know, I also >> want to take a
[7:57:27] brief moment to folks who are
[7:57:29] still >> here or listening on
[7:57:30] line who came out and spoke on
[7:57:33] this item. You know this is a
[7:57:35] major moment for policymaking
[7:57:38] in our city and our impacts and
[7:57:40] our community's voice is
[7:57:41] important in helping us
[7:57:42] understand the impact of our
[7:57:43] decisions. And you know, there
[7:57:45] are there are a few areas that
[7:57:46] I want to speak to and the
[7:57:48] first is yes, state law has
[7:57:52] already taken a lot of land use
[7:57:54] authority from cities. However,
[7:57:57] there is a difference to what
[7:57:59] could be done to what is being
[7:58:01] proposed as someone who earlier
[7:58:03] noted I don't know if they're
[7:58:04] still here there appears that
[7:58:06] we're quote unquote overdoing
[7:58:07] it. And you know, I'm going to
[7:58:09] be blunt. I believe that we're
[7:58:11] being asked to essentially take
[7:58:13] a shortcut a one size fits all
[7:58:16] approach that treats the entire
[7:58:18] city as if every neighborhood
[7:58:20] is the same not not to mention
[7:58:22] proposed projects under this
[7:58:23] program are by right >> I make
[7:58:26] little to no public comment.
[7:58:28] again from the staff
[7:58:29] recommendation raising the
[7:58:31] density limit from eight units
[7:58:32] per acre to 32 units per acre
[7:58:35] across roughly 85% of our
[7:58:37] of our residential >> land. You
[7:58:39] know it's not thoughtful enough
[7:58:41] this blanket this blanketing
[7:58:44] of the city with a single
[7:58:45] number and calling it progress.
[7:58:48] and while yes it's it's under
[7:58:50] state law developers can
[7:58:52] already get these densities
[7:58:53] it's not our policy it's state
[7:58:55] law and so san jose is not
[7:58:57] uniform. San jose has different
[7:59:00] neighborhoods that sit near
[7:59:01] frequent transit walkable
[7:59:03] commercial corridors, existing
[7:59:05] infrastructure, other
[7:59:07] neighborhoods not so much. And
[7:59:09] by choosing this blanket
[7:59:11] approach I think we avoid the
[7:59:12] harder work of identifying
[7:59:14] which areas we can genuinely
[7:59:16] support more housing sequencing
[7:59:18] the transit and infrastructure
[7:59:20] investments and writing
[7:59:22] standards that respect
[7:59:23] different neighborhoods context
[7:59:25] things like egress, ingress,
[7:59:28] public safety response times,
[7:59:30] parking minimums and
[7:59:31] development standards. You
[7:59:33] know, instead of doing the the
[7:59:35] careful analysis, I think the
[7:59:36] proposal simply multiplies the
[7:59:38] density number of by four and
[7:59:39] applies it citywide. You know,
[7:59:42] I want to be clear that, you >>
[7:59:44] know, this is not an opposition
[7:59:45] to housing as several folks
[7:59:47] have said that it's opposition
[7:59:48] to what appears to be careless
[7:59:51] housing policy and the
[7:59:53] unintended consequences that
[7:59:54] may create. And you know, I
[7:59:56] think we deserve a thoughtful
[7:59:58] approach that respects the
[7:59:59] differences between our
[8:00:00] neighborhoods and recognizes
[8:00:02] that once density grants a
[8:00:03] rights are granted, they're
[8:00:05] extremely we can't we can't
[8:00:07] take it back. We know the state
[8:00:08] law doesn't let us down so and
[8:00:10] so you know, when this comes
[8:00:12] back to us next december, our
[8:00:15] options are going to be limited
[8:00:16] based on the alternatives and
[8:00:18] the direction we provide staff
[8:00:19] today. So that's what makes
[8:00:21] this this conversation that
[8:00:22] much more vital. You know, I
[8:00:25] think there's there's there's
[8:00:26] an important point that I want
[8:00:27] to quickly touch on is you
[8:00:29] know, there's a power dynamic
[8:00:31] with with cd that it
[8:00:32] essentially forces our hand to
[8:00:34] make decisions you know that
[8:00:36] that are you know can perceived
[8:00:39] to be against our residents and
[8:00:41] the will of our residents the
[8:00:42] people who for us on the dais
[8:00:44] who voted us in. And so you
[8:00:46] know I don't I don't buy this I
[8:00:47] believe we have the right to
[8:00:49] implement a program as we see
[8:00:51] fit. And so when it comes to
[8:00:53] housing affordability and
[8:00:54] spurring development, I've seen
[8:00:56] our council take a balanced
[8:00:57] approach to not only taking
[8:01:00] every option available to us to
[8:01:02] make a difference but doing so
[8:01:04] in a way that doesn't
[8:01:05] compromise our city's fiscal
[8:01:07] sustainability and the quality
[8:01:08] of life for our residents. You
[8:01:09] know, in march 2025 this
[8:01:11] council unanimously adopted
[8:01:14] direction to the administration
[8:01:16] to explore densify outside
[8:01:18] of our growth areas where the
[8:01:19] market dictated excluding
[8:01:22] excluding high vmt >> areas,
[8:01:24] having empty areas have been
[8:01:25] identified as part of our city
[8:01:27] that lack reliable transit
[8:01:29] options with limited routes for
[8:01:31] for again getting in and out
[8:01:32] of it out of those areas we
[8:01:34] have deemed these areas read on
[8:01:35] a map for a reason and again a
[8:01:39] couple of months later in june
[8:01:40] 2025 staff returned with the
[8:01:42] memo mirroring the language
[8:01:44] that was proposed in the scope
[8:01:45] of work for the general plan
[8:01:46] four year review and I quote
[8:01:49] staff will include in the
[8:01:50] analysis city council direction
[8:01:52] from the march budget message
[8:01:54] to expand growth areas to where
[8:01:55] there is current market demand
[8:01:56] for housing and employment uses
[8:01:58] except in areas with a medical
[8:02:00] >> vmt impacts this direction
[8:02:04] was approved unanimously by
[8:02:06] this council and yet the
[8:02:08] recommendations before us takes
[8:02:10] us to a different path applying
[8:02:12] uniform density across the city
[8:02:15] than the more targeted approach
[8:02:17] and I understand the concerns
[8:02:18] as explained by staff. I get it
[8:02:20] but it's very disheartening to
[8:02:23] to be here and not have this
[8:02:26] flag or not have the concerns
[8:02:28] of potential decertification as
[8:02:30] a threat beforehand >> and or
[8:02:33] you know, at the 11th hour
[8:02:35] getting a phone call from aicd
[8:02:37] essentially saying hey, you're
[8:02:39] going to be decertified and
[8:02:42] yes, it's not overnight and
[8:02:43] yes, it's a series of lack
[8:02:45] of implementation of what we
[8:02:47] said we were going to do
[8:02:48] through the through the housing
[8:02:49] element. But it just does not
[8:02:52] sit well with me. And you know,
[8:02:53] I appreciate
[8:02:55] councilmember cohen's motion
[8:02:58] and the ability to try to get
[8:02:59] something but but I just wanted
[8:03:02] to express my frustration and I
[8:03:05] in the spirit of of
[8:03:08] collaboration I may offer up a
[8:03:09] few more comments but that's
[8:03:11] that's I look forward to
[8:03:13] hearing from the rest of my
[8:03:14] colleagues before I do so >>
[8:03:15] thanks. Thanks.
[8:03:17] councilmember >>. >> all right.
[8:03:22] let's go to
[8:03:24] councilmember ortiz. Thank you,
[8:03:27] mayor. I want to start by
[8:03:29] thanking city staff the
[8:03:30] planning commission for all
[8:03:32] your work that has gone into
[8:03:34] this four year review. I >>
[8:03:36] want to begin just with one
[8:03:38] of the additions in our memo
[8:03:39] that I believe is particularly
[8:03:40] important for serious >> about
[8:03:42] meeting our housing goals. Then
[8:03:44] we also need to look at our own
[8:03:45] processes and identify where we
[8:03:47] may be creating unnecessary
[8:03:49] barriers or delays for
[8:03:50] projects. Right now applicants
[8:03:53] >> have only one opportunity
[8:03:54] each year to advance a general
[8:03:56] plan amendment. If they miss
[8:03:57] that window >> it can mean
[8:03:59] waiting another year while
[8:04:01] continuing to carry land
[8:04:02] financing and pre-development
[8:04:03] >> costs for some projects that
[8:04:06] additional >> time and expense
[8:04:08] can make the difference between
[8:04:09] whether a viable project moves
[8:04:11] forward or whether it doesn't.
[8:04:14] our recommendation which >> was
[8:04:15] accepted into
[8:04:18] councilmember collins motion
[8:04:20] creates an >> additional
[8:04:21] general plan amendment cycle
[8:04:22] for residential, commercial and
[8:04:24] public quasi public sites
[8:04:26] giving us another opportunity
[8:04:27] to move projects forward
[8:04:29] without changing any of the
[8:04:30] underlying review or approval
[8:04:32] requirements. I also want to
[8:04:35] say even though it's not really
[8:04:37] my district, I do support the
[8:04:38] vmt and vmt based protections
[8:04:41] in our memo >> given sb 70 >>
[8:04:46] nine and sb nine. Majority
[8:04:48] of my district >> is already on
[8:04:50] the road to being >> extremely
[8:04:52] dense so this vote doesn't
[8:04:53] really impact my area that
[8:04:55] much. But I think sometimes we
[8:04:58] get individuals who get really
[8:05:00] >> bogged into dogmatic policy.
[8:05:03] I call them policy wonks and
[8:05:05] things are good on paper.
[8:05:07] however, when we actually move
[8:05:08] forward with development they
[8:05:10] >> don't actually make sense. I
[8:05:11] think the faa in downtown
[8:05:13] san jose was a good example.
[8:05:14] people do not want housing
[8:05:16] without parking and especially
[8:05:18] >> in areas >> like east
[8:05:22] san jose where they're spread
[8:05:23] out and we don't have the best
[8:05:26] transportation system already
[8:05:27] developed. It makes things
[8:05:29] difficult especially for
[8:05:30] working >> class people who
[8:05:31] rely on their cars. And so
[8:05:35] while >> you know, the the
[8:05:37] addition of potential parking
[8:05:40] in the overall motion was
[8:05:42] included, it won't necessarily
[8:05:45] impact my district given >> you
[8:05:47] know, the level
[8:05:48] of transportation that exists
[8:05:49] >> there. I think it's good
[8:05:51] because as we look at our city
[8:05:53] sprawling out and expanding,
[8:05:56] these developments are going to
[8:05:57] need parking because people >>
[8:05:59] want in city of san jose people
[8:06:01] will not go into apartments >>
[8:06:04] or condos that don't provide
[8:06:06] spaces for their cars. This
[8:06:07] isn't new york and it's not
[8:06:09] chicago. And so we need to make
[8:06:10] sure that as we make our land
[8:06:12] use decisions we reflect that.
[8:06:14] I >> understand that we do need
[8:06:15] to create additional housing
[8:06:16] capacity citywide but I do
[8:06:19] struggle with the idea that on
[8:06:20] one hand we recognize that
[8:06:21] higher densities make the most
[8:06:22] sense in areas with strong
[8:06:24] transit infrastructure and good
[8:06:26] access to jobs and services
[8:06:28] while on the other hand we
[8:06:29] could apply essentially the
[8:06:30] same density increases to
[8:06:31] neighborhoods where residents
[8:06:33] have fewer transportation
[8:06:34] options, experience more
[8:06:35] traffic and may already have to
[8:06:37] drive further to >> meet their
[8:06:39] everyday needs. We can
[8:06:41] reconcile these two goals and
[8:06:42] make sure we're thinking about
[8:06:43] the infrastructure needed to
[8:06:45] support density where we're
[8:06:46] actually creating it. I'm >>
[8:06:48] also generally supportive
[8:06:49] of providing more flexibility
[8:06:50] in our public quasi public
[8:06:51] lands. There's a balance to
[8:06:53] strike between preserving these
[8:06:54] important community spaces and
[8:06:56] giving schools faith
[8:06:57] institutions and other property
[8:06:59] owners more opportunities for
[8:07:01] housing, child care, recreation
[8:07:04] and community serving uses. And
[8:07:06] with >> that, I do have a
[8:07:07] couple questions for staff.
[8:07:10] first, I'd like to better
[8:07:11] understand how long we have >>
[8:07:12] to decide on density and
[8:07:14] whether we'll have more
[8:07:15] definitive guidance on exactly
[8:07:17] how high our dwelling units per
[8:07:19] acre needs to be. How soon do
[8:07:21] we need to make a final
[8:07:22] decision on residential
[8:07:24] neighborhood density to remain
[8:07:25] compliant with the housing
[8:07:27] element? >> thanks
[8:07:30] councilmember. So this was
[8:07:32] mentioned by
[8:07:33] councilmember tordillos as
[8:07:34] well. There are some both
[8:07:36] timeline and metrics associated
[8:07:38] with the program. So there are
[8:07:40] specific milestones we're
[8:07:41] supposed to meet. And so we're
[8:07:44] already a little bit behind
[8:07:46] some of those milestones in
[8:07:47] terms of when we would have
[8:07:48] these land use decisions done.
[8:07:50] so I think as long as we're
[8:07:51] continuing to show progress and
[8:07:53] show work that we're going
[8:07:54] forward with these things, you
[8:07:56] know, we can we can stay
[8:07:57] compliant. But if we continue
[8:07:59] to delay, that's when we would
[8:08:01] get into a situation where they
[8:08:03] may look unfavorably on us. So
[8:08:05] there's not a hard deadline but
[8:08:07] there are deadlines that we've
[8:08:08] committed to that we've not
[8:08:10] foley kept up with so far. So
[8:08:12] not hard deadlines. So >> when
[8:08:15] you give me an example >> sorry
[8:08:17] there are specific deadlines in
[8:08:18] terms of months of when we
[8:08:19] would make decisions in the
[8:08:21] housing element under p 35 it
[8:08:23] has a specific point and date I
[8:08:25] believe 26th december of 2026
[8:08:30] was when the first milestone is
[8:08:32] technically >> we do have some
[8:08:33] months. Yeah and then there's
[8:08:38] october of 2026 was when we
[8:08:40] were supposed to we're supposed
[8:08:41] to have design standards
[8:08:42] approved and under our current
[8:08:44] timeline we're suggesting
[8:08:45] december of 27 when we'd have
[8:08:47] those approved. So we're
[8:08:48] already a little bit behind and
[8:08:50] so that's why you know,
[8:08:51] continued to make progress is
[8:08:52] important and have some
[8:08:53] decisions made in terms of what
[8:08:55] direction we're but in reality
[8:08:57] we wouldn't be the only city
[8:08:58] behind. There's plenty
[8:08:59] of cities that aren't
[8:09:00] necessarily in good standing
[8:09:01] with hpd. So it's important as
[8:09:05] chris was was mentioning is
[8:09:06] that we continue to show
[8:09:07] progress on those programs.
[8:09:09] those are the types of things
[8:09:10] that they are enforcing on in
[8:09:11] terms of what commitments we
[8:09:13] made in terms of decisions and
[8:09:14] policy programs. You know, I
[8:09:17] think where where there are
[8:09:18] things outside of our control
[8:09:20] with the actual housing
[8:09:21] production under the arena
[8:09:22] that's not necessarily where
[8:09:24] they're choosing to enforce
[8:09:25] because they understand that,
[8:09:26] you know, those are things
[8:09:28] outside of our control but
[8:09:29] where we can implement programs
[8:09:31] and are not making progress,
[8:09:32] that's where we could really,
[8:09:34] you know, run into an issue and
[8:09:36] where they're really monitoring
[8:09:37] us closely. Okay. >> so again,
[8:09:40] I'd like to understand what our
[8:09:41] neighboring cities are doing. I
[8:09:42] understand berkeley is doing I
[8:09:43] think it was 70 but what is
[8:09:46] sunnyvale doing? What is
[8:09:47] cupertino doing? What are
[8:09:48] cities doing in santa clara
[8:09:50] county? I mean the city of san
[8:09:51] jose is not going to solve the
[8:09:53] housing crisis for the county
[8:09:55] or for northern california. So
[8:09:57] and we shouldn't be expected to
[8:09:58] do so. And so what are other
[8:10:00] cities doing? Are other cities
[8:10:02] are already taking these votes
[8:10:03] on how dense or are we rushing?
[8:10:06] we don't need to be the first
[8:10:06] city to vote on this >>
[8:10:19] . So >> I can't I don't I can't
[8:10:23] speak to specific smaller
[8:10:25] cities in santa clara county in
[8:10:26] terms of this type of missing
[8:10:28] middle programs. We'd have to
[8:10:30] look at their housing elements
[8:10:31] more closely. I know in terms
[8:10:33] of the larger cities in the bay
[8:10:35] area and elsewhere in the
[8:10:36] state. These are programs that
[8:10:38] are typical in their housing
[8:10:40] elements. We were just talking
[8:10:42] to oakland, the city of oakland
[8:10:45] the other day and they also
[8:10:46] have a similar program and are
[8:10:47] currently working on general
[8:10:48] plan updates and looking
[8:10:50] at increased density in their
[8:10:51] single-family so they're so
[8:10:53] they're looking >> at it.
[8:10:55] they're not voting on it yet.
[8:10:56] how far away I mean that's what
[8:10:57] I'm trying to understand are we
[8:10:58] like the first city in
[8:11:00] santa clara county doing this
[8:11:01] or why can't we have a
[8:11:02] conversation and stop and
[8:11:03] realize, you know, actually
[8:11:05] where we're at? So they'll be
[8:11:07] bringing forward those changes
[8:11:08] in the coming months to their
[8:11:09] city council in months. Okay.
[8:11:11] so then we are we are moving
[8:11:13] at a faster rate. So how are we
[8:11:16] more susceptible to being
[8:11:17] referred other than we
[8:11:18] got council members calling
[8:11:19] oecd on us? Other than that,
[8:11:22] how are we more susceptible >>
[8:11:23] to hd and us being in
[8:11:25] non-compliant? So in comparison
[8:11:27] to these other municipalities
[8:11:29] obviously you know wouldn't
[8:11:30] want to speak too much for
[8:11:32] oecd. But what I will say
[8:11:33] council members is when you
[8:11:34] take the statewide housing
[8:11:36] element program, the vast
[8:11:37] majority of units added through
[8:11:39] all of the housing elements
[8:11:40] reside in the largest cities in
[8:11:42] the state. Right. And as such
[8:11:43] we've seen, you know,
[8:11:45] noncompliance letters or
[8:11:47] actions taken against, you
[8:11:49] know, san diego with their adu
[8:11:50] law. You know, there's been
[8:11:51] interventions around l.a on
[8:11:53] some of their permitting
[8:11:54] questions and their
[8:11:54] applications. San francisco had
[8:11:56] an unprecedented intervention
[8:11:58] based on some of their
[8:11:59] processes. So we do draw more
[8:12:02] attention by nature that we are
[8:12:03] the third largest city in the
[8:12:04] state and we have you know a
[8:12:06] considerable amount
[8:12:08] of statewide capacity resides
[8:12:09] in the big cities. >> what I
[8:12:12] still would have liked to have
[8:12:13] as we took this vote to get an
[8:12:14] understanding of what our our
[8:12:16] neighboring cities would have
[8:12:17] done, I think that's important
[8:12:18] for us as a council to do so
[8:12:21] especially as we are thinking
[8:12:22] about votes that may change the
[8:12:24] essentially who our city is the
[8:12:27] culture of our city. You know I
[8:12:29] am a renter. I have lived in
[8:12:31] apartments. You know, I know
[8:12:33] what that's like. You know,
[8:12:34] I've I grew up in a single
[8:12:35] family home but in my district
[8:12:37] people already living like
[8:12:38] this. I want to be brutally
[8:12:38] honest with everybody. I grew
[8:12:40] up in a single family home.
[8:12:41] there was three families that
[8:12:43] lived there. And here's
[8:12:44] san jose. We have no parking
[8:12:45] because that's that's the
[8:12:47] reality. So at the end of the
[8:12:48] day the vote today doesn't
[8:12:49] impact my district. I just want
[8:12:51] to make sure that if we're
[8:12:52] taking an important >> vote
[8:12:53] like this, we're doing so with
[8:12:55] all >> the information we need
[8:12:57] and crossing our t's and dot in
[8:12:59] our eyes and I just I feel like
[8:13:01] we are rushing and I feel like
[8:13:02] there's a there is a heightened
[8:13:05] >> level of haziness that's
[8:13:09] that's been pushed on this
[8:13:10] council and I don't I don't
[8:13:12] appreciate that I don't I don't
[8:13:13] feel I feel like you know part
[8:13:15] of this council is forcing the
[8:13:16] other part of the council to
[8:13:17] make this well thank you >>
[8:13:24] okay let's let's keep going and
[8:13:28] we will turn now to council
[8:13:29] member committee. Thank you so
[8:13:35] much. I want to thank all
[8:13:38] of the people who came out to
[8:13:40] give us your thoughts. We've
[8:13:41] had a lot of emails, a lot
[8:13:44] of information, a lot
[8:13:45] of letters. There's been quite
[8:13:47] a bit of engagement. So thank
[8:13:49] you so much. I want to thank >>
[8:13:52] the >> the department for all
[8:13:55] of the work that you've done. I
[8:13:57] especially want to thank jared
[8:13:59] ferguson who you know we've
[8:14:01] been sort of having him on
[8:14:02] speed dial and director burton
[8:14:05] as well, you know, in terms
[8:14:07] of answering questions and
[8:14:08] doing a lot of work on this. So
[8:14:11] thank you very much. I want to
[8:14:12] thank my colleagues. I think
[8:14:14] you we all worked really hard
[8:14:16] on our memos and tried to move
[8:14:18] something that was manageable
[8:14:21] and to move forward in our >>
[8:14:23] process here now I want to talk
[8:14:26] about a little bit on the you
[8:14:28] know, what are we doing here
[8:14:29] today >> and what it is and
[8:14:31] what it isn't because I've
[8:14:32] heard a lot of >> different
[8:14:35] understandings of of what we
[8:14:37] are today doing. We aren't
[8:14:40] rezoning anything. We aren't
[8:14:43] adopting any changes in the
[8:14:45] general plan or making an
[8:14:46] amendment. Nobody will be able
[8:14:48] to leave here today or tomorrow
[8:14:50] and apply for to build anything
[8:14:52] under any of the land use
[8:14:53] policies that we are discussing
[8:14:56] so this is to >> give
[8:14:58] direction. We're discussing the
[8:15:00] parameters of future policy. So
[8:15:02] this is part of a very long
[8:15:04] process and there was a slide
[8:15:07] today that shows where we are
[8:15:09] in that process. You know it's
[8:15:14] going to be for the adoption
[8:15:15] and defining the outer
[8:15:16] boundaries of environmental
[8:15:18] study so that whatever >> the
[8:15:21] whatever action the >> council
[8:15:23] ultimately takes we have a
[8:15:26] sufficient study of what those
[8:15:28] impacts are. The environmental
[8:15:30] impact is like tailoring a
[8:15:32] garment. You could always
[8:15:33] reduce it and remove fabric but
[8:15:35] you can't add to it. Similarly
[8:15:38] we can't enact regulations
[8:15:41] which are whose impacts we
[8:15:42] haven't studied >> so this will
[8:15:45] give sort >> of the the
[8:15:47] landscape of what the body
[8:15:50] of study >> is going to be so
[8:15:51] that when we do get the
[8:15:53] information we will make an
[8:15:55] informed decision on what those
[8:15:57] impacts >> are. There will be
[8:15:59] additional points in time for
[8:16:01] the council and the public to
[8:16:02] further define each of these
[8:16:04] policies as we move forward to
[8:16:07] eventually do a general plan
[8:16:09] amendment at the end of 2020
[8:16:11] for 27 excuse me and for the
[8:16:15] adoption and implementation
[8:16:17] of ordinances and policy. So
[8:16:19] today is a very important day.
[8:16:22] it's a very key check in
[8:16:25] between the beginning of this
[8:16:27] discussion and what >> will
[8:16:28] happen locally in in in the
[8:16:31] future. >> so you know, I
[8:16:34] wanted to say a little bit
[8:16:35] about the density bonus law and
[8:16:40] I'm going to kind of simplify
[8:16:42] >> the you know what we were
[8:16:45] considering in point one on our
[8:16:48] memo with council member toward
[8:16:50] dios. What it really is is that
[8:16:53] >> at this point in time an
[8:16:55] applicant could get in some
[8:16:57] of the larger lots up to five
[8:16:59] units. Right. And if they have
[8:17:02] these five units on an existing
[8:17:03] parcel they could did restrict
[8:17:05] one and use the state's density
[8:17:08] bonus >> law to toss out all
[8:17:10] of the height all of the
[8:17:11] setback and other standards are
[8:17:14] item number one really proposes
[8:17:16] a pathway >> that should be
[8:17:18] preferable to state law so that
[8:17:20] we would have local control
[8:17:22] right? So we want to make it
[8:17:24] more desirable. So the idea is
[8:17:26] really to explore >> our own
[8:17:30] density bonus law instead
[8:17:32] of having them trigger once you
[8:17:34] get the five you know I mean we
[8:17:37] had an example today of more
[8:17:38] than five so you know, I think
[8:17:41] that that is certainly worth
[8:17:43] considering and I'm glad that
[8:17:45] it was made a part of the >>
[8:17:47] friendly amendment. I just
[8:17:48] wanted to clarify >> to make
[8:17:49] sure that councilmember cohen
[8:17:52] you had added item number two
[8:17:55] to develop written health and
[8:17:56] safety standards on projects.
[8:17:59] so >> that was that was
[8:18:01] included. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
[8:18:02] okay. Okay. I just wanted to
[8:18:04] confirm that >> and explore.
[8:18:08] yes, yes >> that's fine. That's
[8:18:10] fine. And you know I do
[8:18:13] appreciate that many of the
[8:18:16] residents mentioned the
[8:18:19] fundamental changes to the
[8:18:20] quality of life of our american
[8:18:22] dream >> and I understand that
[8:18:26] you know, I too worked very,
[8:18:28] very hard, struggled very, very
[8:18:32] much to be able to afford a
[8:18:33] single family home. I know how
[8:18:36] it changes. It does change the
[8:18:37] character >> but the the what
[8:18:41] we're trying to do today is
[8:18:43] really to study what is going
[8:18:46] to happen >> in those areas. So
[8:18:49] I look forward to the resulting
[8:18:53] information that will come to
[8:18:54] us and look forward to being
[8:18:59] able to continue the
[8:19:00] conversation. Thanks
[8:19:04] councilmember. Maybe just to
[8:19:05] quickly combine the points from
[8:19:07] councilmembers ortiz and
[8:19:08] committee back to back there in
[8:19:11] order to not rush to
[8:19:12] prematurely close the door and
[8:19:14] limit our optionality as
[8:19:16] councilmember ortiz conveyed I
[8:19:19] think councilor akamai's point
[8:19:20] that we're setting a direction
[8:19:21] for staff study is important. I
[8:19:23] think councilor candles and
[8:19:24] others have all pointed to
[8:19:25] this. I think the question
[8:19:27] right now that we have to
[8:19:28] settle on today is what's
[8:19:30] within the scope of what staff
[8:19:32] is going to go study. It's not
[8:19:33] a final decision but leaving it
[8:19:35] out tonight basically precludes
[8:19:37] us. It's not guaranteed we
[8:19:40] could all decide to pull the
[8:19:41] handbrake and add something in
[8:19:42] but it gets a lot harder to add
[8:19:44] new concepts later and it's not
[8:19:45] fair to staff and it puts us
[8:19:46] off track. So tonight is a
[8:19:48] night to be and that's why I
[8:19:49] appreciate we've got three
[8:19:51] different memos, a lot
[8:19:52] of different recs. I think
[8:19:53] councilor condon an admirable
[8:19:55] job of trying to put as many
[8:19:56] pieces in we're not done. I
[8:19:58] still see a lot of hands but
[8:20:00] lest anyone think that we are
[8:20:02] rushing to a conclusion I would
[8:20:04] say read the memos from all the
[8:20:06] council members which are
[8:20:07] adding a lot of scope to what
[8:20:08] staff is studying for the very
[8:20:10] point that we don't want to
[8:20:11] settle or or zero in today on
[8:20:13] one answer we're giving a lot
[8:20:15] of optionality and a range
[8:20:17] intentionally here and there
[8:20:18] may be more added as we go on
[8:20:20] though I know we have some
[8:20:21] limits to chris's team's
[8:20:22] capacity. All right. Let
[8:20:24] me turn now to
[8:20:25] councilmember campos. Thank
[8:20:29] you, mayor. I want to begin by
[8:20:32] appreciating the members of our
[8:20:34] community who have participated
[8:20:36] in the general plan review
[8:20:37] process for the past year for
[8:20:40] those who have shared their
[8:20:41] diverse opinions here today, I
[8:20:44] thank you. I am also grateful
[8:20:46] to the planning commissioners
[8:20:47] who have spent many hours
[8:20:49] during the general plan task
[8:20:51] force meetings listening
[8:20:52] carefully to public input and
[8:20:54] putting together thoughtful
[8:20:55] recommendations for council and
[8:20:57] of course I want to thank
[8:20:58] planning staff for their
[8:20:59] significant and difficult work
[8:21:02] to help the city meet the
[8:21:04] housing needs of our community
[8:21:05] and comply with complex and
[8:21:07] challenging state mandates.
[8:21:09] finally, I want to thank
[8:21:10] my colleagues in the general
[8:21:11] plan brown act group that I've
[8:21:13] been working with and in the
[8:21:14] spirit of compromise we have
[8:21:16] prepared prudent
[8:21:17] recommendations which I'll
[8:21:19] speak to briefly. None of us on
[8:21:22] council are oblivious to the
[8:21:24] public comments that we've
[8:21:25] received in our inbox that
[8:21:26] we've heard tonight. Nor are we
[8:21:29] ignorant about the housing
[8:21:30] crisis and its impacts on
[8:21:32] hundreds of thousands of our
[8:21:33] neighbors. But the hard truth
[8:21:35] is that our obligation to
[8:21:36] comply with state law is real.
[8:21:39] and as we've heard there are
[8:21:40] severe consequences if we do
[8:21:42] not make that good faith effort
[8:21:44] to meet state mandates. Each
[8:21:46] side has provided clear
[8:21:47] guidance to our staff about
[8:21:49] their expectations around the
[8:21:50] housing element and if we do
[8:21:52] not implement housing element
[8:21:54] program p 35 which allows small
[8:21:56] multifamily housing citywide
[8:21:59] and if our housing element is
[8:22:00] decertified we risk loss
[8:22:03] of local control in return
[8:22:05] of the builders remedy and loss
[8:22:07] of eligibility for hundreds
[8:22:09] of millions of dollars in state
[8:22:10] grants for transportation
[8:22:12] infrastructure and affordable
[8:22:14] housing. But that's not the
[8:22:16] only reason that we on council
[8:22:18] have to make these tough
[8:22:19] decisions. And I want to share
[8:22:21] a personal story of an
[8:22:23] experience that I had yesterday
[8:22:25] that left me reflecting on the
[8:22:27] vote before us today because
[8:22:29] yesterday at southside
[8:22:30] community center we hosted a
[8:22:32] wildfire wildfire preparedness
[8:22:34] town hall and on my way in I
[8:22:36] noticed a young man who was
[8:22:38] arriving with a suitcase but
[8:22:40] instead of walking inside the
[8:22:41] building he stayed outside
[8:22:43] sitting on a bench in our past.
[8:22:45] and as I walked back to my car
[8:22:47] I noticed he was still sitting
[8:22:48] on that bench. I went home and
[8:22:51] I continued thinking about this
[8:22:53] person who was about my age who
[8:22:55] had no safe home to spend their
[8:22:57] night who most likely spent the
[8:22:59] evening outside because that's
[8:23:02] the reality that we are facing
[8:23:04] where too many older adults are
[8:23:06] families with children and
[8:23:08] youth aging out of foster >>
[8:23:09] care are at risk
[8:23:11] of homelessness in our city or
[8:23:14] they're already experiencing
[8:23:15] this and as a city as a
[8:23:18] council. But most importantly
[8:23:20] as a community I hope that we
[8:23:22] can reset our north star and
[8:23:24] framing for this general plan
[8:23:26] conversation because we have
[8:23:28] not built enough housing for
[8:23:29] decades costs have increased so
[8:23:32] much that the cost that most
[8:23:34] of the housing in san jose is
[8:23:36] not affordable to hundreds
[8:23:38] of thousands of people who
[8:23:40] struggle every single day to
[8:23:43] make rent or people like me who
[8:23:46] feel like they will never be
[8:23:47] able to buy a house in their
[8:23:49] hometown. I'm 32 and I live
[8:23:52] at home with my parents. This
[8:23:54] is why I'm proud to have worked
[8:23:56] with my colleagues to find ways
[8:23:58] to provide more affordable and
[8:24:00] accessible housing in
[8:24:02] my district district to the
[8:24:04] southside community center is
[8:24:05] what I want to speak to as an
[8:24:07] opportunity for us to explore
[8:24:08] public private partnership that
[8:24:10] would bring new housing
[8:24:12] including affordable homes
[8:24:14] along with a new community
[8:24:15] center by proactively amending
[8:24:18] the general plan, the city can
[8:24:19] subsequently go through an
[8:24:21] extensive public process to
[8:24:23] identify a development partner,
[8:24:24] design a new community center
[8:24:26] and public amenities and
[8:24:27] provide much needed community
[8:24:30] facilities and housing. And as
[8:24:32] the property owner the city
[8:24:33] would retain all land use and
[8:24:35] planning discretion on the
[8:24:37] southside community center
[8:24:39] piece that is included on the
[8:24:42] motion on the floor council
[8:24:44] members command tordillos
[8:24:45] remind us in their memo that
[8:24:47] this action today is not the
[8:24:48] final approval of any changes.
[8:24:50] it is the framework for
[8:24:52] necessary environmental review
[8:24:54] and there will be many more
[8:24:56] opportunities as we've heard
[8:24:57] for the community to provide
[8:24:58] input on development standards
[8:25:00] and implementation. So I look
[8:25:02] forward to supporting the
[8:25:03] motion and continuing the
[8:25:05] conversation over the next
[8:25:07] year. Thank you, council
[8:25:11] members. Let me turn now to
[8:25:12] vice mayor. Thank you. I was
[8:25:17] debating whether to say
[8:25:18] anything because it's been said
[8:25:21] by many of my colleagues and
[8:25:22] much more eloquently than I can
[8:25:26] say it. But first I want to
[8:25:27] thank the staff for their
[8:25:29] presentation and and
[8:25:31] particularly ruth and jared for
[8:25:34] presenting at the joint town
[8:25:36] hall we had with the two and
[8:25:38] ten last was it last week but
[8:25:42] but thank you for that. I did
[8:25:45] sit in on the final planning
[8:25:48] commission meeting where the
[8:25:50] planning commission voted to
[8:25:51] move this forward and I found
[8:25:54] it a very interesting but
[8:25:56] confusing and complicated
[8:25:58] conversation. This is not an
[8:26:01] easy topic and I come from a
[8:26:03] real estate world so to to
[8:26:07] go through all of the
[8:26:08] recommendations to listen to
[8:26:10] the planning commission and I
[8:26:11] know there are some planning
[8:26:12] commissioners in the room thank
[8:26:14] you so much for your time on
[8:26:16] the task force and then as a
[8:26:17] planning commissioner as well.
[8:26:19] I really appreciate that this
[8:26:23] is really difficult. Thank >>
[8:26:26] you to also for all the public
[8:26:28] comments both emails that I
[8:26:31] received over the last couple
[8:26:32] of weeks and today and while >>
[8:26:36] I didn't respond to everybody I
[8:26:38] did listen and read all of them
[8:26:40] because I wanted to see where
[8:26:41] you were coming from and
[8:26:42] frankly I live one 2 in 1
[8:26:44] of those neighborhoods that is
[8:26:47] going to be quote unquote up
[8:26:49] zoned and that's of concern to
[8:26:51] me because I'm going to have to
[8:26:52] look at my neighbors after we
[8:26:54] vote on after we approve
[8:26:55] density and they're going to be
[8:26:57] really disappointed at me on
[8:26:59] how I make a vote, how I vote.
[8:27:02] I also want to say that this is
[8:27:04] the last time I will be voting
[8:27:06] on the general plan when this
[8:27:08] comes to us them in december
[8:27:13] of 2027 I won't be here I term
[8:27:16] out at the end of december and
[8:27:17] so this decision that they will
[8:27:21] be making I may be standing in
[8:27:23] the audience coming in and
[8:27:24] saying you're ruining
[8:27:26] my neighborhood. I don't know.
[8:27:28] but we'll see. We'll see. I
[8:27:30] want to challenge you all to
[8:27:32] continue. The engagement so far
[8:27:36] has been really important and
[8:27:38] and I want to challenge you to
[8:27:40] continue to be involved,
[8:27:42] continue to pay attention to
[8:27:43] the issue as it goes forward
[8:27:46] because as it's been explained,
[8:27:49] this is the starting point.
[8:27:50] this isn't the end. We are
[8:27:52] giving direction for staff to
[8:27:54] look at a variety of densities
[8:27:57] but no decision is being made.
[8:28:00] the decision on design
[8:28:01] standards three storeys high
[8:28:04] I've heard a lot of comments
[8:28:05] about three storey high no
[8:28:07] parking that was really
[8:28:08] important that for me that we
[8:28:10] added in the parking because I
[8:28:12] was on council when we removed
[8:28:14] parking a minimum parking as a
[8:28:17] requirement we thought it would
[8:28:19] rightsize itself and it did and
[8:28:21] it didn't. But in the
[8:28:22] neighborhoods we I really felt
[8:28:24] we needed to bring back the
[8:28:26] minimum requirements and staff
[8:28:28] will take a look at that and
[8:28:30] bring it in but your input is
[8:28:32] really important from from all
[8:28:34] sides because truthfully all
[8:28:37] count all of us up here have
[8:28:38] listened to what you have to
[8:28:40] say to my council members
[8:28:42] candela and ortiz >> I hear
[8:28:45] your frustration and I don't
[8:28:48] disagree with it. This feels
[8:28:52] that it's a this is a very
[8:28:53] complicated decision with a lot
[8:28:56] of repercussions but you will
[8:28:59] have a year plus to still craft
[8:29:02] it and come back with the right
[8:29:05] the right thing for the city
[8:29:07] of san jose and for your
[8:29:09] communities. I know there's
[8:29:11] some pressure to to create a
[8:29:15] boundary with vehicle miles
[8:29:18] traveled and a barrier where
[8:29:20] development won't occur. I
[8:29:23] would caution you not to that
[8:29:25] feels a little bit like
[8:29:26] redlining to me and in the old
[8:29:29] days redlining was bad. So
[8:29:31] where you draw a circle around
[8:29:33] an area in a city and said
[8:29:35] we're not going to get people
[8:29:36] who live in that so that area
[8:29:38] housing and so I would just
[8:29:41] caution you as you're thinking
[8:29:42] about that think about the
[8:29:44] unintended consequences and how
[8:29:46] that's going to play out with
[8:29:47] the greater the greater
[8:29:49] community. And I realize I'm
[8:29:50] lecturing but this is the last
[8:29:52] time I get to lecture and
[8:29:54] that's just the way it's going
[8:29:56] to be right now. So again, stay
[8:30:02] please community stay engaged.
[8:30:05] this is it's important that we
[8:30:08] truly >> preserve the the
[8:30:10] character of our of our
[8:30:11] neighborhoods too because
[8:30:13] you're living you're buying or
[8:30:15] you're renting in our
[8:30:16] communities. You're sending
[8:30:18] your kids to schools in those
[8:30:19] communities for a reason
[8:30:21] because you feel connected to
[8:30:24] it. You feel safe there. Your
[8:30:26] family may be there. So we need
[8:30:29] to make sure that we protect
[8:30:30] the dynamic and the the the
[8:30:33] feelings of the communities and
[8:30:36] that doesn't mean I'm against
[8:30:37] density or development
[8:30:39] development is really
[8:30:41] important. We actually
[8:30:42] absolutely must build but we
[8:30:45] haven't seen the effects of sb
[8:30:47] 79 yet and we have a lot
[8:30:49] of vacant schools that could be
[8:30:52] in that pathway of development
[8:30:54] for sb 79 where we're going to
[8:30:56] get some high rises and we
[8:30:58] won't even have an authority or
[8:31:00] an ability to do anything about
[8:31:02] it. I'm concerned about that
[8:31:04] because I had a couple
[8:31:05] of schools close in my district
[8:31:09] I would to staff when you come
[8:31:12] back with the design and
[8:31:14] guidelines and future memos
[8:31:18] could you please use language
[8:31:20] that I or a fifth grader could
[8:31:23] understand? It would really be
[8:31:25] helpful for me to be able to
[8:31:29] explain it to others. I think a
[8:31:32] school board member actually
[8:31:33] mentioned that and she's she's
[8:31:35] right. The the the simpler you
[8:31:37] make it for us the easier it
[8:31:38] is. I think that is about it
[8:31:42] but council member cohen I have
[8:31:45] a question for you regarding
[8:31:47] the south side or actually
[8:31:49] staff you mentioned something
[8:31:50] about the fire station being
[8:31:52] retained as pickup. So do we
[8:31:55] need to clued that in the >>
[8:31:57] motion that the fire station be
[8:32:00] retained in pcb? >> yes. Okay
[8:32:05] then councilmember cohen, will
[8:32:07] you include that? Yeah, I did
[8:32:08] ask and I got the answer before
[8:32:10] that we didn't have to that
[8:32:11] they would understand that. But
[8:32:12] if if it makes it clear we'll
[8:32:13] go ahead and just use that in
[8:32:15] the motion. Okay. With that, I
[8:32:19] know we're going to hear from
[8:32:21] councilmember mulcahy and thank
[8:32:22] you for negotiating all of the
[8:32:24] issues in your area which
[8:32:26] frankly I haven't paid much
[8:32:27] attention to because it's your
[8:32:30] council district >> but that's
[8:32:32] that I think what you've heard
[8:32:35] is the council really does
[8:32:37] listen to what you have to say.
[8:32:39] we're concerned about
[8:32:41] development and yeah and a
[8:32:46] carte >> blanche change of >>
[8:32:47] zoning from residential to
[8:32:49] higher density across the city
[8:32:51] there is a place for
[8:32:52] development. It's not a place
[8:32:54] in all of our neighborhoods
[8:32:56] just to have a citywide zoning
[8:32:59] change with that thank you,
[8:33:01] mayor. Thanks, vice mayor.
[8:33:03] appreciate your reflections.
[8:33:04] let's turn now to
[8:33:05] councilmember mckay. >> thank
[8:33:08] you, mayor. Vice mayor paul,
[8:33:11] you can add me to the same list
[8:33:13] as ortiz and candela has been
[8:33:15] frustrated with things and we
[8:33:17] were in the same brown act
[8:33:18] together. Who knew? So I want
[8:33:22] to thank the city staff. You
[8:33:24] guys have a very difficult job
[8:33:26] balancing not only all the
[8:33:28] public comment and how to
[8:33:30] process that but certainly the
[8:33:32] 11 of us and all of our team.
[8:33:34] so thank you for hanging in
[8:33:36] there >> and and I you know, I
[8:33:39] want to recognize the planning
[8:33:40] commissioners who sat as the
[8:33:41] four year review board and all
[8:33:44] the neighbors who've taken time
[8:33:45] to engage today tonight and all
[8:33:49] the weeks leading up to this
[8:33:52] meeting. So I want to start
[8:33:53] with the items in district six
[8:33:56] because district six is out
[8:33:57] of the entire review process
[8:33:59] leading up to this session is
[8:34:01] the only district where there
[8:34:02] were targeted changes made
[8:34:05] specifically for the
[8:34:06] opportunity for >> additional
[8:34:07] residential capacity city and
[8:34:11] this included both the alameda
[8:34:13] and winchester boulevard. So I
[8:34:15] want to talk about winchester
[8:34:16] for a moment. This has been on
[8:34:18] our agenda a lot over the last
[8:34:21] year and I don't think that
[8:34:25] there's a more involved
[8:34:27] neighborhood than the cary
[8:34:28] neighborhood in this and I just
[8:34:29] want to paint a little picture.
[8:34:32] this >> is not you know, your
[8:34:34] single family neighborhood, you
[8:34:36] know, not wanting encroachment
[8:34:38] into it. This is a neighborhood
[8:34:41] that sits directly astride the
[8:34:44] valley fair mall which as we
[8:34:46] know is our biggest mall, one
[8:34:49] of the top producers in the
[8:34:50] world price per foot and they
[8:34:54] have growth capacity that
[8:34:55] remains. They also have santana
[8:34:59] row just adjacent to that. >>
[8:35:02] so this is not just a
[8:35:03] neighborhood that is pushing
[8:35:05] back on high rise. Rasi this is
[8:35:08] one that is already dealing
[8:35:10] with real everyday issues. No
[8:35:13] valley fare now charges for
[8:35:15] parking. So this is these are
[8:35:17] real issues for this community
[8:35:19] and I want to make sure that
[8:35:20] we're not just thinking about
[8:35:21] that little burb, you know, and
[8:35:25] just kind of pushing off
[8:35:26] housing. This is an affected
[8:35:27] impacted neighborhood. So we've
[8:35:30] heard from our neighbors from
[8:35:31] san jose or from city of santa
[8:35:34] clara too. That's right across
[8:35:35] the street of winchester. And
[8:35:38] you know, we've heard from
[8:35:39] their council member and mayor
[8:35:40] have weighed in on their
[8:35:41] concerns on this. It's worth
[8:35:44] noting too that the planning
[8:35:45] commission took five votes
[8:35:48] specifically on trying to piece
[8:35:50] together something for the
[8:35:52] winchester corridor and
[8:35:54] couldn't come to an agreement
[8:35:55] on it. And it's late and
[8:35:58] at first when I heard it I
[8:36:00] thought it was distasteful. Now
[8:36:01] I'm laughing about it but I
[8:36:02] think he meant it tongue in
[8:36:03] cheek. But after the last
[8:36:05] meeting the planning and the
[8:36:06] chair of the planning
[8:36:07] commission said I think the
[8:36:09] staff give council member
[8:36:11] mulcahy our love knowing that
[8:36:14] we were going to have this
[8:36:15] difficult challenge to deal
[8:36:17] with. >> so which is why I'm
[8:36:19] proud to bring forward a
[8:36:20] compromise proposal that gets
[8:36:22] us residential development and
[8:36:25] at the same time protects
[8:36:27] neighborhoods serving retail
[8:36:29] that is sort of from the
[8:36:31] heading corner of winchester
[8:36:34] down to forest which is
[8:36:36] essentially the the you know,
[8:36:38] the door of valley fair. So as
[8:36:41] we work our way from heading on
[8:36:43] the north we've got some
[8:36:45] residential opportunities as we
[8:36:47] work our way down to existing
[8:36:49] commercial you know active
[8:36:52] successful retail now that
[8:36:55] serves that community. So
[8:36:57] that's really what we're trying
[8:36:59] to accomplish and I would
[8:37:01] really appreciate you
[8:37:02] considering a friendly
[8:37:04] amendment to your motion that's
[8:37:07] on the floor >> and your
[8:37:10] request is to include the your
[8:37:12] entire recommendation >> would
[8:37:14] be one c on the domingo candela
[8:37:18] mulcahy or t's memo. Okay I
[8:37:21] mean I my preference was to
[8:37:24] defer to the work you had done
[8:37:25] in the community but I just I
[8:37:26] wanted I had I had heard staff
[8:37:28] with a little bit of concern
[8:37:29] about the appropriate densities
[8:37:31] and so can you I'll just ask
[8:37:32] chris one more time and then
[8:37:33] I'll >> yeah, happy to talk to
[8:37:36] it. I think you know, I do
[8:37:39] really appreciate
[8:37:41] councilmember mckay's approach
[8:37:42] in trying to sort of be
[8:37:44] thoughtful about how to
[8:37:45] approach this very specific
[8:37:48] part of the recommendation. I
[8:37:50] think you know, initially staff
[8:37:53] had been looking this following
[8:37:55] the proposal for the 17 storey
[8:37:57] development on the particular
[8:37:59] site and trying to find an
[8:38:01] appropriate compromise in the
[8:38:02] conversation at that time was
[8:38:03] this is a you know, fairly
[8:38:05] significant thoroughfare, you
[8:38:07] know on the approach to valley
[8:38:09] fair and santana row there's an
[8:38:11] opportunity here to see
[8:38:13] redevelopment for housing now
[8:38:15] the way that we've considered
[8:38:17] conversion of commercial sites
[8:38:19] throughout the city which is
[8:38:21] different to sort of how we're
[8:38:22] talking about kind of other
[8:38:23] density conversations in this
[8:38:25] recommendation is typically in
[8:38:26] the past we've pushed for
[8:38:28] higher densities on commercial
[8:38:29] sites and part of the reason
[8:38:31] for that there's a couple
[8:38:32] of tradeoffs and one, you know,
[8:38:33] we're trying to create
[8:38:34] opportunity for balanced growth
[8:38:36] throughout san jose that
[8:38:37] provides the sort of services,
[8:38:38] amenities and retail
[8:38:39] opportunities to support our
[8:38:41] residents and when we convert
[8:38:43] that it comes at a cost both
[8:38:45] sort of amenities and services
[8:38:47] cost as well as an actual
[8:38:48] fiscal cost to the city. It was
[8:38:50] mentioned earlier by a
[8:38:52] councilmember committee about
[8:38:53] sort of density levels and the
[8:38:54] fiscal impact of land use. And
[8:38:56] so typically we're always
[8:38:57] looking at pushing those
[8:38:58] densities on commercial
[8:39:00] conversions and I think that's
[8:39:01] part of our hesitation when we
[8:39:03] think about the sort of long
[8:39:04] range approach is that if we're
[8:39:06] going to come down on that
[8:39:07] density into those lower ranges
[8:39:10] you know should we just leave
[8:39:11] it as commercial and just sort
[8:39:13] of wait for the long term
[8:39:14] opportunity? Now the tradeoff
[8:39:16] is that, you know, there is a
[8:39:17] near-term opportunity to see
[8:39:19] redevelopment and create
[8:39:21] opportunity for housing units.
[8:39:23] so I get I mean that's that's
[8:39:24] really the sort of policy
[8:39:25] consideration for council to
[8:39:27] kind of give us the direction
[8:39:28] >> and I >> would say and add
[8:39:30] to that that there are two
[8:39:31] of these properties that we're
[8:39:32] really encouraging you know
[8:39:35] what we're what we're placing
[8:39:37] at it now encourages
[8:39:38] development. Now there are two
[8:39:39] blighted sites that have been
[8:39:40] just sitting there and so they
[8:39:42] are you know, challenges for
[8:39:44] the neighborhoods as well.
[8:39:47] okay. I mean I don't I guess I
[8:39:49] don't hear I think we're
[8:39:50] applying this is applied to
[8:39:51] such a small set of properties
[8:39:55] that it's you know while it's
[8:39:57] my go against some of the
[8:39:58] instincts that I have and the
[8:39:59] staff has about density, you
[8:40:02] know, given the work that
[8:40:03] you've done, I'm I'm okay with
[8:40:05] accepting it as a friendly
[8:40:06] amendment on the motion >> to
[8:40:09] approve the second >> great
[8:40:11] thank you very much. So I do
[8:40:14] want to talk about a couple
[8:40:14] of other things I think it's
[8:40:16] important to highlight west
[8:40:18] san carlos this is item one d
[8:40:21] which has already been picked
[8:40:22] up but I just wanted to sort
[8:40:23] of highlight it so I'm
[8:40:25] supportive of staff's effort to
[8:40:26] evaluate how mixed use
[8:40:28] commercial designations
[8:40:29] throughout the city are working
[8:40:31] where they may not be and
[8:40:32] identifying options for future
[8:40:34] uses. And while conversion to
[8:40:36] commercial may make sense in
[8:40:38] some areas the west san carlos
[8:40:40] corridor is well positioned to
[8:40:42] pursue more new residential
[8:40:45] development. Right now we have
[8:40:47] 1500 units recently delivered
[8:40:49] under construction and or
[8:40:51] submitted when we lost the
[8:40:53] corner. If you remember last
[8:40:55] year race in west san carlos to
[8:40:57] a new chick-fil-a. I made a
[8:40:59] commitment to those against
[8:41:00] that used to identify more
[8:41:02] residential opportunities. This
[8:41:04] is part of that. The corridor
[8:41:06] is in transition despite the
[8:41:08] new construction which is sort
[8:41:10] of more down towards downtown
[8:41:13] san carlos is countless aging,
[8:41:15] vacant and blighted buildings.
[8:41:17] it is littered with unwanted
[8:41:19] commercial activities and
[8:41:20] code violations and has the
[8:41:22] third highest concentration
[8:41:24] of graffiti among major
[8:41:26] corridors in the entire city
[8:41:29] exploring the conversion
[8:41:30] of some of the remaining mixed
[8:41:31] use commercial sites to
[8:41:33] residential would align with
[8:41:34] our goals of creating
[8:41:36] additional residential capacity
[8:41:38] in our urban villages and along
[8:41:40] our major boulevards. And I
[8:41:41] want to thank
[8:41:43] councilmember cohen for pulling
[8:41:44] that into the motion. So on
[8:41:47] residential density, I'm still
[8:41:50] really, really having a
[8:41:52] difficult time reconciling the
[8:41:53] rationale or defense of the
[8:41:55] proposed increase from 8 to 32
[8:41:58] dwelling units per acre
[8:41:59] effectively going from 1 to 4
[8:42:01] units on a lot in a blanket
[8:42:03] approach over the entire city.
[8:42:05] I think that's sort of been the
[8:42:06] common theme the blanket
[8:42:07] approach doesn't even account
[8:42:10] for 80 use generate used state
[8:42:12] density bonus or the 450
[8:42:16] something state laws around
[8:42:18] housing and I think with those
[8:42:23] 80 use junior ideas I mean does
[8:42:25] I think that math can get us up
[8:42:27] to 32 units per acre in
[8:42:29] practice >> so much of the
[8:42:32] disagreement and certainly I
[8:42:33] think why our brown act
[8:42:35] couldn't come together with
[8:42:36] five signatures is really on
[8:42:38] this very item stems from the
[8:42:40] variety of interpretations and
[8:42:42] I know I'm treading on comments
[8:42:44] from earlier but from each
[8:42:47] code and my read is that our
[8:42:49] commitment was to evaluate
[8:42:50] opportunities for 210 housing
[8:42:52] and locations throughout the
[8:42:53] city including areas adjacent
[8:42:56] to urban villages and
[8:42:57] residential areas along major
[8:42:59] streets. The intent was to
[8:43:01] support missing middle housing
[8:43:03] near urban villages, create and
[8:43:04] transition between our
[8:43:06] residential neighborhoods and
[8:43:08] major thoroughfares. I don't
[8:43:10] believe the commitment was
[8:43:11] intended to require a one size
[8:43:13] fits all approach. If it was,
[8:43:16] why even call out urban
[8:43:18] villages >> and major streets
[8:43:19] to begin with? Couldn't the
[8:43:21] phrase throughout the city just
[8:43:23] as likely refer to being
[8:43:24] equitable making sure we get
[8:43:26] density across the city and not
[8:43:29] unfairly consecrate
[8:43:30] concentrated? I'd have expected
[8:43:33] an approach that placed value
[8:43:34] on the uniqueness and diversity
[8:43:37] of our neighborhoods as well as
[8:43:38] differences in access to
[8:43:41] reliable transit and major
[8:43:42] roadways. We should concentrate
[8:43:45] more densely around urban
[8:43:46] villages and apply more modest
[8:43:48] increases in primarily
[8:43:50] residential neighborhoods. We
[8:43:52] should be more meticulous
[8:43:54] considering all the variables
[8:43:56] >> and the realities on the
[8:43:58] ground. In my view this is a
[8:44:01] more thoughtful and responsible
[8:44:02] way to approach city planning.
[8:44:05] this would allow us to create
[8:44:06] the residential capacity we
[8:44:07] need while recognizing that not
[8:44:09] every lot and every
[8:44:10] neighborhood is the same and
[8:44:13] even consider for such an
[8:44:14] important decision we must have
[8:44:16] greater clarity on the
[8:44:18] framework of our decision.
[8:44:19] while my colleagues and I in
[8:44:21] our memo pointed to our support
[8:44:23] of the mayor, vice mayor and
[8:44:25] and the others memo regarding
[8:44:27] you know to environmentally
[8:44:28] clear a range of options it
[8:44:30] still gives me pause because
[8:44:32] of the range of interpretations
[8:44:34] of p 35 the city's promise to
[8:44:37] cd and I'll just finish here >>
[8:44:40] we can't make decisions >>
[8:44:43] based on threats from a state
[8:44:45] agency that has not yet given
[8:44:47] us an answer. Well, some of us
[8:44:49] an answer will actually be
[8:44:51] acceptable to me. We have no
[8:44:53] real opinion from our city
[8:44:55] attorney speculation run by
[8:44:56] city staff has created rumor
[8:44:59] and innuendo and people around
[8:45:01] this building have been playing
[8:45:02] land use attorney for the last
[8:45:04] couple of weeks that kind
[8:45:05] of guns lightning only gets us
[8:45:07] in trouble. There's just too
[8:45:09] much at stake. I don't I went
[8:45:14] last hoping that there would be
[8:45:15] a magic answer to where we
[8:45:18] go here and I appreciate all
[8:45:20] of my colleagues, you know,
[8:45:22] suggesting that this is only
[8:45:24] the beginning of this
[8:45:25] conversation and I just really
[8:45:29] hope that we get the
[8:45:30] information we need. The
[8:45:32] community gets the information
[8:45:33] it deserves and we can come to
[8:45:36] a solution on this in december
[8:45:38] of 27. Thank you. Thanks,
[8:45:47] councilmember. Appreciate your
[8:45:47] >> comments. It may give you
[8:45:50] some solace that were we to
[8:45:52] come back and ultimately agree
[8:45:54] not I'm sure not ruling would
[8:45:55] like this but were we to
[8:45:57] go with 16 plus use and not
[8:46:02] allow for the combination
[8:46:05] of lots you would effectively
[8:46:06] be defaulting test benign which
[8:46:08] is what we have today so it
[8:46:10] does preserve a range that
[8:46:12] allows a status quo approach
[8:46:15] but other options as well. Let
[8:46:17] me turn to council. It could >>
[8:46:20] first you know, I appreciate
[8:46:23] everybody, you know, chiming in
[8:46:25] and given their perspective
[8:46:27] it's it's appreciated and >>
[8:46:28] ditto councilmember mulcahy on
[8:46:31] your talking points and you
[8:46:32] know we talked a lot as we were
[8:46:34] coming up with our our group
[8:46:35] memos and you know, mayor, to
[8:46:37] your point earlier about now
[8:46:39] being the opportunity for for
[8:46:40] input and it being critical to
[8:46:43] offering the guidance to staff
[8:46:46] in order to see a program that
[8:46:48] best addresses the concerns
[8:46:50] that we've we've outlined. And
[8:46:52] with that I'd like to offer a
[8:46:53] friendly amendment to the
[8:46:55] motion and shout out to the
[8:46:58] city attorney's office for
[8:46:59] helping our office craft this
[8:47:01] language with regards to the
[8:47:05] environmental review and in
[8:47:07] your all in your your memo with
[8:47:09] amend and replace its one be
[8:47:11] amend and replace e one to
[8:47:13] direct staff to environmental
[8:47:14] review increasing the densities
[8:47:16] from 1624 and 32 and return to
[8:47:19] the council with these options
[8:47:21] etc. Etc. I'd like to be
[8:47:23] specific in exploring it as
[8:47:27] part of this environmental
[8:47:28] review to study and explore
[8:47:30] guardrails for high vmt areas
[8:47:34] including ingress, egress,
[8:47:36] public safety impacts to
[8:47:38] emergency response times
[8:47:39] associated with police and fire
[8:47:42] public transit options as it
[8:47:43] relates to mobility, parking
[8:47:44] minimums and development design
[8:47:47] standards. And this is all
[8:47:48] language that I've ran through
[8:47:50] the city attorney's office that
[8:47:52] would help us get an extra you
[8:47:54] know, review as part of the
[8:47:56] environmental >> process that
[8:47:57] they're going to be engaging in
[8:47:59] to be able to flesh that out
[8:48:00] given the impact to these
[8:48:02] areas. And I would I would hope
[8:48:04] you would accept this as a as a
[8:48:06] as a friendly yeah. I >> mean I
[8:48:09] think it makes sense. I will
[8:48:10] tell you and I have mahan up
[8:48:11] because I just wanted to say
[8:48:12] some things that that have been
[8:48:13] triggered by this conversation
[8:48:14] since I went first and I and I
[8:48:16] >> wanted to go I wanted to
[8:48:17] go in front of you on purpose.
[8:48:17] no, no, no. I wanted to but I'm
[8:48:19] just I'm just saying that I
[8:48:21] because I have some of the same
[8:48:22] concerns that >> you have that
[8:48:23] led you to your to your >>
[8:48:25] memo. It's not like I didn't I
[8:48:27] mean so so I appreciate that
[8:48:29] there's a way to study these
[8:48:30] impacts without at upfront
[8:48:33] eliminating them from the where
[8:48:36] we can make changes. I think
[8:48:39] that was the point it was and
[8:48:41] so I was actually going to ask
[8:48:42] in my comments if there was a
[8:48:43] way to be more granular. So I
[8:48:44] appreciate what you're >>
[8:48:46] recommending. Yeah sorry said
[8:48:49] okay with the second okay
[8:48:51] great. And you will you've
[8:48:54] got that language clear the
[8:48:55] city attorney and will share
[8:48:56] with the clerk thanks
[8:48:58] councilmember okay did you have
[8:48:59] more was that that was that
[8:49:01] concluded your remarks? Thank
[8:49:02] you. Let me go to
[8:49:03] councilmember casey. Well I'll
[8:49:06] be brief. Mulcahy and domingos
[8:49:09] stole a lot of my thunder. I
[8:49:12] appreciate councilmember cohen
[8:49:13] for incorporating the vmt
[8:49:15] language. I know even in our
[8:49:16] brown act >> we had had
[8:49:17] conversations about that. The
[8:49:19] challenge for me is I'm nearing
[8:49:22] half a century in my district
[8:49:24] and I remember looking over
[8:49:26] my backyard and seeing orchards
[8:49:27] and now it's a housing track so
[8:49:28] I understand change is
[8:49:30] inevitable. My concern is that
[8:49:32] we're not doing this in a
[8:49:33] thoughtful way and I think
[8:49:34] mulcahy >> had mentioned that.
[8:49:36] I think we're in a negotiation
[8:49:38] with hpd and I don't think it's
[8:49:40] appropriate for us to just
[8:49:42] yield to their authority and do
[8:49:44] what essentially negotiate
[8:49:46] against ourselves. So I'm
[8:49:47] supportive of us aggressively
[8:49:49] negotiating for >> the lowest
[8:49:52] density in areas where it
[8:49:54] doesn't >> make sense. I ran on
[8:49:56] density where it makes sense in
[8:49:57] downtown and in transportation
[8:49:59] corridors density does not make
[8:50:01] sense in d-10 so ultimately I'm
[8:50:03] open to our memos but when the
[8:50:05] rubber hits the road I will not
[8:50:07] support density >> in d-10
[8:50:09] thank you. Thanks
[8:50:13] councilmember. Let me go back
[8:50:15] to sue. Let me go did I just
[8:50:18] put >> my light on because I
[8:50:19] assumed you're saying my name
[8:50:20] so yes I'll circle the system
[8:50:22] doesn't anyway, thank you. I
[8:50:25] just want to start by just
[8:50:26] saying look many of us in this
[8:50:27] city are lucky in terms of the
[8:50:29] timing of when we were able to
[8:50:31] buy homes in our city. I just
[8:50:33] tell the story I bought my home
[8:50:34] 27 years ago. I was just I mean
[8:50:37] I was young, I was in my 20s. I
[8:50:38] was able to buy a home in
[8:50:39] my 20s. That home as my value
[8:50:42] has appreciated by a factor
[8:50:43] of six over 27 years now is
[8:50:47] that an expectation that that
[8:50:48] should happen? I don't believe
[8:50:50] so and I will say that I
[8:50:51] sometimes feel sheepish about
[8:50:54] this whole thing that people
[8:50:55] now can't do what I did right
[8:50:58] and am I willing to say that
[8:51:00] that some things that we do in
[8:51:02] our neighborhood will allow
[8:51:03] will force my home value to
[8:51:05] depreciate a little bit so that
[8:51:07] others will have more
[8:51:07] opportunity? I think that's
[8:51:08] reasonable. I've I've gained
[8:51:10] and I've been and I've been
[8:51:11] able to benefit from this
[8:51:14] community and the and the and
[8:51:17] the problems that we're trying
[8:51:18] to deal with as a community. So
[8:51:19] I'm just going to say that up
[8:51:20] front I think it's important to
[8:51:21] point that out and just say it
[8:51:23] pains me that others can't have
[8:51:25] what I have and that and we're
[8:51:26] fortunate to do what I did
[8:51:27] at the time that I was able to
[8:51:28] do it. But a lot of things can
[8:51:31] be true at once. One size fits
[8:51:34] all is not always the best but
[8:51:37] we >> shouldn't say that there
[8:51:39] are areas of the city where we
[8:51:40] can't provide opportunity for
[8:51:42] people to be able to live there
[8:51:43] . The whole idea of this
[8:51:45] of this policy is that >> we
[8:51:49] should be offering opportunity
[8:51:51] for people to find places
[8:51:52] anywhere in the city if they
[8:51:54] want a certain school district,
[8:51:55] if they want certain services
[8:51:57] we provide opportunity and so
[8:51:59] both those things are sort
[8:52:01] of counter to each other. One
[8:52:02] size fits all is not always the
[8:52:03] best but we also can't paint
[8:52:06] the broad brush of of saying
[8:52:10] certain areas are going to be
[8:52:11] off limits and I appreciate the
[8:52:13] comments that vice mayor made
[8:52:15] about if you do that you're
[8:52:16] you're kind of keeping in place
[8:52:19] policies that have gotten us
[8:52:21] into this problem in the first
[8:52:22] place. Character of cities and
[8:52:25] neighborhoods necessarily
[8:52:26] changes over time, right? I
[8:52:28] mean we the fact that this was
[8:52:29] the way it was 40 years ago
[8:52:30] when people bought their homes
[8:52:32] doesn't mean it's the way it's
[8:52:32] going to be now as
[8:52:33] councilmember casey just
[8:52:34] pointed out. Right. I mean
[8:52:36] there were orchards and there's
[8:52:37] homes now there's going to be
[8:52:37] some density >> and things are
[8:52:39] changing and we should be able
[8:52:40] to work work on that. But one
[8:52:44] of the things that been
[8:52:44] occurring to me during this
[8:52:45] conversation is you know, I've
[8:52:47] been pushing back on the one
[8:52:48] size fits all from a state
[8:52:50] standpoint from our state
[8:52:51] legislators this idea that
[8:52:52] every city should have this
[8:52:53] should have the same set
[8:52:54] of rules >> we you know, we
[8:52:57] shouldn't necessarily accept
[8:52:58] that one size can fit all in
[8:52:59] our city and I and it's
[8:53:01] difficult to ask how can we be
[8:53:03] more granular in this decision
[8:53:05] making and I agree with
[8:53:08] councilmember ken jealous and
[8:53:08] your basic premise that we
[8:53:10] should be more granular. I
[8:53:12] don't necessarily agree that
[8:53:13] that that the vmt was the right
[8:53:15] approach because it basically
[8:53:16] shuts down huge swaths of our
[8:53:18] city from having the
[8:53:19] opportunity that's that's the
[8:53:21] challenge here and I just
[8:53:21] wanted to say that so I mean
[8:53:23] it's a challenge then put on
[8:53:25] the planning department >>
[8:53:27] going forward to think about
[8:53:28] this granularity what makes
[8:53:30] sense? How can we be more
[8:53:31] focused without shutting it
[8:53:33] down anywhere? I don't know the
[8:53:35] answer to that. But >> you
[8:53:37] know, even when we study 1632,
[8:53:39] 16, 2432 are there some places
[8:53:41] where 16 makes sense in some
[8:53:42] places where 32 makes sense. I
[8:53:44] know it's a lot of work to sort
[8:53:46] of decide neighborhood by
[8:53:47] neighborhood what makes sense
[8:53:48] but I just we shouldn't
[8:53:50] necessarily be shutting off
[8:53:51] that conversation. I think I do
[8:53:55] appreciate the memo from
[8:53:56] today's committee and I when I
[8:53:57] read it I thought this
[8:53:58] sounds like a good idea but I
[8:53:59] just needed a little more
[8:54:00] explanation on it. >> the idea
[8:54:03] that we can bring back some
[8:54:05] local control over design
[8:54:06] standards and what gets built
[8:54:08] is important and I will say
[8:54:10] this is a big fight across the
[8:54:11] state. I'm I am the chair
[8:54:13] of the resolutions committee
[8:54:14] for the league of the cities
[8:54:15] of the state of california.
[8:54:16] this >> september >> at our
[8:54:19] conference there is a
[8:54:20] resolution being brought
[8:54:21] forward >> to the general
[8:54:23] assembly >> of the league that
[8:54:24] I will be evaluating as chair
[8:54:26] as part of that committee will
[8:54:27] be evaluating asking for a
[8:54:29] working group to figure out how
[8:54:30] to put how to develop a
[8:54:32] potential state constitutional
[8:54:33] amendment to bring back local
[8:54:35] control of land use for cities
[8:54:37] because this is the push that
[8:54:38] cities are are pushing back on
[8:54:39] the state. This conversation is
[8:54:41] going >> to be had at the state
[8:54:42] level so this is not easy and I
[8:54:46] and you know I do you know
[8:54:48] while I appreciate some of the
[8:54:50] intent of some of the state
[8:54:51] laws, they have continued to
[8:54:52] pile on and pile on and it's
[8:54:55] made it our lives difficult. So
[8:54:57] I just want to say, you know, I
[8:54:59] made a motion I support some
[8:55:00] of the underlying ideas here
[8:55:01] but it was never totally
[8:55:02] comfortable to me that we were
[8:55:05] doing this broad brush. I just
[8:55:06] wanted to say that here and
[8:55:08] sort of leave that out there as
[8:55:11] a thought as we move forward in
[8:55:12] the next 16 months before it
[8:55:13] comes back to council. Thank
[8:55:15] you. Great. Thanks
[8:55:19] councilmember. I appreciate
[8:55:20] that and all the friendly
[8:55:21] amendments that you accepted
[8:55:23] along with the vice mayor
[8:55:25] councilor casey. Yes. Sorry for
[8:55:28] extending conversation. I just
[8:55:29] want to push back a bit on this
[8:55:30] notion that density anywhere
[8:55:32] at least to affordability I
[8:55:33] don't know that that
[8:55:33] necessarily bears out in
[8:55:35] reality. I >> think david
[8:55:38] noelle has a good point in
[8:55:39] terms of condo defect if we
[8:55:40] build a torn of condos, smaller
[8:55:43] units you know affordable by
[8:55:44] design that will lead to
[8:55:46] affordability. But a multi-unit
[8:55:48] in los gatos for example is
[8:55:50] still very expensive. A
[8:55:52] multi-unit in almaden is still
[8:55:54] going to be very expensive.
[8:55:55] it's not going to be
[8:55:56] affordable. So I just want to
[8:55:58] push back on this idea that
[8:55:59] density naturally be used to
[8:56:00] affordability because I don't
[8:56:01] think that's necessarily true.
[8:56:05] all right. And and I suspect
[8:56:08] this is going to be a very
[8:56:09] engaging ongoing conversation
[8:56:11] for this council over the
[8:56:12] coming years. But let me turn
[8:56:13] now to councilmember tordillos
[8:56:14] >> and I would push back
[8:56:16] against that notion. You know
[8:56:18] the city has actually looked
[8:56:19] at this. They did a feasibility
[8:56:21] study on missing rental housing
[8:56:22] in 2021 and across the board
[8:56:24] they found that 4 to 8 unit
[8:56:26] projects would be cheaper than
[8:56:27] the lower density projects that
[8:56:29] they studied. This can also be
[8:56:30] seen in data on actual missing
[8:56:32] little programs that have been
[8:56:33] developed in other cities.
[8:56:34] there have been studies of 4000
[8:56:36] missing middle homes built in
[8:56:38] seattle over the past 20 years
[8:56:40] and they consistently showed
[8:56:41] that higher density projects
[8:56:42] had lower prices been lower
[8:56:44] density projects. Oh boy. Here
[8:56:48] we go. All right. We only do a
[8:56:50] study session on this specific
[8:56:52] topic, councilor. Okay. >> so
[8:56:55] as you need to do in every
[8:56:57] debate is define the terms. So
[8:56:59] a blanket statement of more
[8:57:01] density leads to cheaper
[8:57:02] development. That's just not
[8:57:03] true. Are you talking about 100
[8:57:06] unit density versus a duplex? I
[8:57:10] don't know that that actually
[8:57:11] bears out so I would push back.
[8:57:13] I think that's a gut feeling.
[8:57:16] I'd look at this study and I
[8:57:17] assure you that there's issues
[8:57:18] with it. There's no way you can
[8:57:20] tell me you look at vancouver,
[8:57:21] you look at like I mentioned
[8:57:23] los gatos, you look at hong
[8:57:24] kong international cities, the
[8:57:26] demand >> for housing in
[8:57:28] certain areas is so high and
[8:57:30] it's supply and demand I get
[8:57:31] it. But there's enough of the
[8:57:32] demand where we we can't
[8:57:34] outstrip the demand with the
[8:57:35] supply at the moment in certain
[8:57:37] areas in san jose in
[8:57:37] particular. So I push back on
[8:57:39] your push back. All right. I
[8:57:44] think at that point we're going
[8:57:45] to pause and take a vote. Thank
[8:57:47] you all. It's a great
[8:57:48] discussion. I appreciate all
[8:57:49] the really thoughtful memos and
[8:57:51] recommendations. Ions thank
[8:57:52] you, councilor cohen, for
[8:57:53] managing the motion there >>
[8:57:57] and staff thank >> you for all
[8:57:59] of your work and thank you the
[8:58:00] members of the committee you
[8:58:01] hung in there all the way. So
[8:58:04] what time >> is it? We're
[8:58:05] at 1030. Impressive. Thank you.
[8:58:07] I appreciate it, toni. Let's
[8:58:09] vote
[8:58:22] . I, I still have one >> got to
[8:58:26] hold out. Okay. Keep motion
[8:58:30] passes 8 to 3 with dawn kendall
[8:58:34] and casey voting no. >> all
[8:58:36] right. Okay, we are thank you
[8:58:41] all. We are >> on to open forum
[8:58:45] >> and this is an opportunity
[8:58:48] for members of the public to
[8:58:49] comment on city business that
[8:58:51] was not on today's agenda >>
[8:58:55] 2012 credit cards. Okay. I have
[8:58:58] >> ernestina if you're still
[8:59:01] here brady how will rich ted
[8:59:07] scarlett and I don't know this
[8:59:12] the pine on lou cassie I don't
[8:59:17] know what that means but those
[8:59:18] are the ones I have in person.
[8:59:22] if nobody is coming down I'm
[8:59:23] going to go ahead and go to
[8:59:25] brian followed by blair online
[8:59:28] . Can you hear me okay? Yes, I
[8:59:36] just I watch the whole thing.
[8:59:38] I'm really glad that we do this
[8:59:39] because I was able to
[8:59:41] go through about 500 coins and
[8:59:44] do my laundry and listen to but
[8:59:47] I have to say this and all
[8:59:48] of you worked very hard. I mean
[8:59:50] I have agreed with everything
[8:59:51] but I have to take back what
[8:59:56] I've said a couple of times
[8:59:57] where nobody reads emails that
[8:59:58] I have been wrong about that
[9:00:01] and proven wrong today on
[9:00:02] several occasions and I
[9:00:03] apologize for that. Thank you
[9:00:05] and have a good evening. Thank
[9:00:07] you. Blair remember these are
[9:00:10] for topics not on the agenda,
[9:00:11] >> right? Blair beakman hi. I
[9:00:15] got quite a learning lesson
[9:00:16] today. Thank you. I hopefully I
[9:00:18] can talk about it. Wilson open
[9:00:19] government tomorrow I thanks
[9:00:23] that you have zoom >> available
[9:00:25] again by the way I >> it's
[9:00:28] important to the city
[9:00:30] of oakland is there developing
[9:00:32] a full community process to
[9:00:34] address the future of how to
[9:00:35] leave block that they can look
[9:00:38] for another aop vendor as a
[9:00:40] full community process they're
[9:00:42] taking you know another 12 to
[9:00:46] 16 months to do that that
[9:00:48] they've already started I think
[9:00:50] san jose and san diego
[9:00:51] definitely can be doing the
[9:00:52] same sort of things >> you guys
[9:00:54] kind of oh it you obviously put
[9:00:57] in way too much surveillance
[9:00:59] tech under the carter
[9:01:00] administration. I hope you
[9:01:02] learned an important lessons
[9:01:03] that minimal amounts of tech
[9:01:05] can do the same amount
[9:01:06] of public safety work and those
[9:01:08] are important lessons to learn.
[9:01:09] good luck on leaving flock and
[9:01:11] finding a new way. Hope your
[9:01:12] vendor that we practice pete >>
[9:01:15] rich see yeah I'm here. Are you
[9:01:24] able to hear me? Yes. So this
[9:01:28] is in regards to stinky new
[9:01:33] food trucks. >> oh okay. Yeah.
[9:01:40] so we're I don't know why it's
[9:01:43] echoing but anyways we are here
[9:01:46] about talking about your you're
[9:01:49] moving every 15 minutes. Are >>
[9:01:59] you done? No. So you guys have
[9:02:03] a lot of that that we have to
[9:02:05] move our food truck every 15
[9:02:07] minutes and that's it's pretty
[9:02:10] much impossible because we have
[9:02:13] it takes 15 minutes just to get
[9:02:14] the food truck >> started and
[9:02:20] yes so that's what we're here
[9:02:21] for. Okay thank >> you colin
[9:02:24] user to start six to unmute hi
[9:02:32] I like to address the situation
[9:02:36] at the corner of speak in
[9:02:37] lucchese there's been a pile
[9:02:41] of debris that is impeding
[9:02:43] traffic. I have contacted the
[9:02:47] city numerous times and
[9:02:48] contacted the vice mayor
[9:02:50] numerous times and her staff
[9:02:52] and this pile just keeps
[9:02:53] growing bigger and bigger with
[9:02:55] more trash and it needs to be
[9:02:59] removed just in a red zone.
[9:03:00] it's actually an emergency zone
[9:03:02] for emergency vehicles and
[9:03:03] painted red and there's no
[9:03:06] reason that it can't be
[9:03:07] removed. I realize they may
[9:03:09] pile stuff back after is
[9:03:11] removed but it shouldn't stay
[9:03:12] there till it's dried out as a
[9:03:13] fire hazard. It needs to be
[9:03:15] moved and it cause it's almost
[9:03:18] caused me to rear end people
[9:03:19] because when they go to make a
[9:03:20] right hand turn they break
[9:03:22] because there's debris in the
[9:03:24] way. It shouldn't be that way
[9:03:26] and there's no way it should
[9:03:27] take this long to have it
[9:03:29] removed. I've called d o t I've
[9:03:31] called tampa office and no one
[9:03:33] is. Thank you, sheila. I I >>
[9:03:42] own property on medgar avenue
[9:03:45] in san jose and at the corner
[9:03:48] of medgar and the entrance to
[9:03:51] the 280 freeway is a huge
[9:03:53] parking lot that would be
[9:03:55] perfect for another cerato huge
[9:03:59] building and I don't understand
[9:04:01] why there's nothing being done
[9:04:03] about it. It's empty and that's
[9:04:05] a perfect space for advancing
[9:04:09] the goal of affordable housing.
[9:04:13] I mean it's got to be
[9:04:14] affordable almost. Garris
[9:04:15] whatever your bills I agree so
[9:04:17] I mean I don't know who is I
[9:04:20] don't know whose district
[9:04:21] that's in I, I don't know but
[9:04:23] what I do know is that
[9:04:24] particular corner is open
[9:04:26] whether it's owned by the
[9:04:27] church or whether it's I don't
[9:04:30] know but I'm going to ask every
[9:04:32] person who knows about medgar
[9:04:35] and the entrance to the 280
[9:04:37] freeway to invest. I gave that
[9:04:41] as a reason. Thank >> you,
[9:04:43] milo. Hi. So I have a thought
[9:04:50] experiment. I think it might
[9:04:51] illuminate the conversation
[9:04:53] tonight. Imagine you have two
[9:04:55] really nice toys lego toys the
[9:04:58] right next to each other. They
[9:05:00] happen to be in los gatos. One
[9:05:02] of the toys is made of what two
[9:05:03] pieces you knock it down and
[9:05:07] with the pieces you build for
[9:05:09] smaller toys >> you think each
[9:05:12] one of these toys they're still
[9:05:13] really nice. We still
[9:05:15] got those. Do you think each
[9:05:17] one of these four smaller toys
[9:05:19] is going to sell for the same
[9:05:21] amount as the one really nice
[9:05:23] toy right next to it that
[9:05:26] wasn't knocked to pieces? This
[9:05:27] sounds like it's on >> the same
[9:05:28] topic we already talked about
[9:05:29] last night earlier this doesn't
[9:05:31] sound like a new topic price
[9:05:40] hello. This is priced >>
[9:05:42] at eight. >> okay. Okay so
[9:05:48] my name is bryce. I own and
[9:05:50] operate a gourmet mobile food
[9:05:51] truck together with my mother.
[9:05:53] the current rule that states a
[9:05:55] food truck must move every 15
[9:05:56] minutes does not match with
[9:05:58] reality. It takes 20 minutes to
[9:06:00] get set up to perform duties.
[9:06:02] I'm asking council to delete or
[9:06:04] >> amend this rule so I may
[9:06:06] continue to perform my duties
[9:06:07] and support my family. I have
[9:06:09] received countless citations
[9:06:11] and infractions which truly
[9:06:13] boggles my mind because I am an
[9:06:16] active member in my community
[9:06:19] who works with many youth
[9:06:20] groups, churches and
[9:06:22] nonprofits. And I'm just asking
[9:06:24] that we can either revise the
[9:06:27] rules that have to do with
[9:06:28] mobile vending. I'm willing to
[9:06:30] come back next tuesday and as
[9:06:32] long as it takes because you
[9:06:34] know, we pay all of our fees.
[9:06:35] we have every permit possible.
[9:06:38] and I just I love stand part
[9:06:39] of the community and I want to
[9:06:40] continue. Thank you. >> thank
[9:06:42] you. Back to council. I need
[9:06:49] somebody to adjourn. >> all
[9:06:55] right. Thanks, everybody. We're
[9:06:57] adjourned. Have a great night
[9:06:59] >>
[9:09:49] . >>