City Council - meeting_joint_regular

2 o'clock. So we are going to call the August 12th meeting of the Rules and Open Government Committee to order. So let's start with roll call, please. Here.

Dwan. Here. Foley. Here. Comey. Here. Cohen.

Here.

Ravikor.

Thank you so much. Our first item is to review or do our final review of the Tuesday, August 18th council agenda. It has a 930 agenda. Closed session, a 1.30 regular session and still enlists a 6 p.m. evening session. Consent calendar starts on page five and ends on page six. In section three we have the Housing Department Loan Portfolio Audit Report. In Section 7, our response to the grand jury report on the Animal Care Center. And under land use, we have one item on consent. We have an item related to property at 1295 Kirtner Avenue. And we have our general plan four-year review policy framework discussion. Do we have any public comment?

Yes, we do. As a reminder, speakers must comply with the city's code of conduct for public meetings. Please direct comments to the body, limit remarks to the agenda item, and observe the time limit. Conduct that materially disrupts the meeting or interferes with others' ability to participate may result in muting or removal as authorized by law. When I call your name, please go ahead and come down to the podium. You don't need to speak in the order you are called. So we'll start with the in-person speakers first. Lindy, Evan, Brian, please go ahead and make your way to the podium.

GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS LINDY HAYES. I'M WITH CONCERNED COREY NEIGHBORS. YOU MAY REMEMBER US FROM LAST JUNE, THE MATTER OF THE 17TH STORY BUILDING AT THE CORNER OF WINCHESTER AND HEDDING. I AM HERE TO REQUEST THAT THE LAST ITEM ON THE AFTERNOON SESSION, THE GENERAL PLAN REVISION, BE MOVED TO A TIME CERTAIN OF 6 O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING. I do this for two reasons. First and most important to enable public input. We have a large number of people that work in our neighborhood. We have school children. These people will not be able to participate if it's in the afternoon. The second reason is, frankly, I think the council's going to need a break. I don't think it's going to be humanly possible to go straight through. If I understand it right, you have two very time-consuming items before the general plan.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Brian Darby, what she said I agree with.

Also calling Eric and Lena, please go ahead and make your way to the podium.

Good afternoon. My name is Evan Brooks. I own property adjoining 650 Harry Road, the former IBM Almaden Research Center. On August 10th, I submitted a written request to this committee and the city clerk asking that the rezoning of the site file numbers C26008 and ER26088 be removed from the consent calendar for August 18th. This is a 605-acre rezoning. It removes the 1980 plan development instrument that has been the only protection on approximately 570 acres of open space, protection that this council directed staff to make permanent in December 1999 in an action that was never completed. Members of the public have filed formal protests. Whatever the council ultimately decides, this is not routine business, and I respectfully request that the committee direct this item be removed from the consent portion of the August 18th agenda so that it receives public comment and council discussion. Thank you.

Good evening chair and council members Lena drape with the Santa Clara Valley open space authority regarding the 650 Harry road conforming rezoning we respectfully request that this item be delayed in order to ensure that the full implications of a rezone to industrial park are understood. As we saw with or as we will see with some of the items in the later in this meeting local land use protections are more important than ever. While conforming rezone implies minimal impacts, given the current context of dramatic federal and state policy changes, especially to allowances for industrial development, community members and stakeholders need to fully understand the potential new uses that could be allowed on this site as a result of this action. Therefore, we feel that it is reasonable to request this simple delay. Thank you.

Good evening chair Cohen members of the committee, my name is Eric Shane our I represent the IBM property at 650 Harry road and, in fact, this is a routine action under SP. The city is supposed to ensure that the zoning of properties match the general plan and that's the only action that's before you coming up on Tuesday so. The open space that has been there for 46 years will remain exactly as it is today. And actually the council's action by approving the rezoning will reinstate and clearly state that that's the council's intentions to protect the open space as it exists today. The 35 acres of industrial park will be that industrial park and the enumerated uses in the code for industrial park would be allowed to repurpose this building that's going to be vacant soon, because IBM is moving out, and we don't want vacant buildings that catch fire and cause problems in the community. Thank you.

We're now going to virtual speakers. Call in user one, followed by Linda Hutchins. Call in user one.

Yeah, hi, Martha O'Connell. I'll make this real quick. I support families and homes and all the other folks who want the general plan recommendations moved to the evening. I understand the problem with having a time certain, but please move it to the evening. Thank you.

Linda. Yes. Hi, this is Linda Hutchins Knowles, co-founder and team coordinator of Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley and District 9 resident. We're concerned about preserving the existing open space for future generations and are also concerned about lack of community input and regulatory oversight of industrial development at the historic IBM Almaden research site. We ask that you please move it for the consent calendar so there's more time for public input. Thank you. Back to the committee.

All right, well, thank you all for your input. We're back to the committee for discussion. I'll start with Vice Mayor Foley.

Thank you. I appreciate the public comment regarding first the agenda and the consent item. Addressing the consent item, as is our policy, when we get to the consent item, a council member can pull that, at which time that item is discussed by council and the general public. So regarding the time certain, that's very difficult for us to project. If you look at Our current agenda, it is not a large agenda, but there is one particular item before the general plan that could take some time and we just don't know. Every time we have a time certain, it makes it very difficult because we have to cancel, stop the meeting where we are, and then move forward. We've been through meetings pretty much all year and almost since I've been in council where we just go straight through and council is prepared to do that. So I am going to move the agenda for August 18th. canceling the evening session and making sure that the general plan item is heard the last item which it already is and may I remind you that we do have call-in opportunities too and I suspect that that discussion on the general plan will run long anyway so there will be plenty of time for public to comment on that, and I'm pretty certain that we will have plenty of time to discuss that. So with that, I move the agenda with cancellation of the evening session, and I so move.

Do we have a second? No, we have a motion and a second. Any other feedback or comments? I want to just add about the consent item on land use. It's a single, so we have two consent calendars to be clear. We have the first consent calendar which has a number of items on it and is heard first and then we have the land use consent which is a single item this time. So really it already is a single standalone item and so any member of the council or any member of the public who wants to comment on it will be commenting on it separately. So the agenda as it's written already accommodates for that item to be heard independently from the rest of consent. So if somebody wants, there's really no distinction between having a single item consent and having it not be consent since it's on a separate land use. Certainly any member of the council who wants to comment on it next week will formally pull it so it's not considered consent so we can discuss it, but I imagine that that is likely to happen given the public input. I don't see any other comments, so let's move to vote. Okay, motion carries 5-0. And we're on to our first review of the August 25th council meeting. That one has a 9.30 closed session, 1.30 regular session, and consent starts on page five and continues on pages six and seven. In section three, we have a discussion on November 2026 ballot measures and whether we will take positions on any of them. We have a item also on electric services, public right of way for Tokay energy storage. Section five, we have a professional consultant service agreement for the airport. We have a response to the Civil Grand Jury report on pothole damage and a response to the Civil Grand Jury report on VTA's management and oversight of BART phase two. Section six, amendments to the Fish Lake geothermal power purchase agreement. Section eight, negotiation agreement and right of entry for 71 Vista, Montana and a multifamily housing incentive program waiver for 210 Bay Point. And no land, oh, there is, there's one item on land use, section 10.2, a conditional use permit for property at 163 West Santa Clara Street. Do we have any public comment?

No public comment.

Okay, back to the committee.

Move approval. Second.

All right. Seeing no discussion, let's vote. Motion carries 5-0. On... Next, we're on to our consent calendar. We have three items on consent. I am actually going to pull for comment item, or comment and feedback and information for staff. Item three on consent, sorry, item two, oh no, item three. I'm really lost today. Item three on consent I'm going to pull. Do we have any public comment on the consent?

Yes, Brian, please go ahead and make your way to the podium.

I think this has to do with consent. Sorry if it doesn't. Just if it could be made clear about how you would like our correspondence with you so that we can be ensured that it's actually read in emails on your website so that I will tailor what I write towards what you want. Because a lot of times it really feels like it's not read. We don't get callbacks. We don't get responses. And I brought this up on consent because it happens to do like the public record Why do we do it if it doesn't seem to make any difference at all? And I might be wrong about that, but I'm not the only one that feels that way. Thank you.

Moving on to virtual speaker, Jordan.

I just wanted to express my excitement for item three, the infrastructure financing tools study session. I know a friend of mine has been saying good words about EIFDs and I'm interested in hearing what staff has learned about it. Really hoping that those tools can give us a pathway for financing some of the really important projects that we seem to have trouble financing. That's all. Thank you.

Back to the committee.

I will accept a motion on the entire thing after I make my comment on number three. I just want to raise this because it's been brought to my attention that one of the council members is not available on September 14th and one who really wants to be part of that discussion. So there will be a request of staff to look for alternative dates and I want to ask Lee if you want to mention and say anything about that.

sure so the rules committee can pass as is now and we can keep that date but what i would ask uh madam assistant uh city clerk is could we pull the mayor and council again on availability for study session dates in the fall. That's how we actually schedule the study sessions and so we may need to think through that and get some additional dates now that calendars have filled up. But if we can find an alternative date, staff can initiate a date change and obviously a date that works with our director of our Office of Economic Development and Cultural Affairs will be leading that discussion.

Thank you. Pardon, through the chair, if I may. I would recommend that our committee defers setting a date or moving forward on this before setting a date just for transparency so the public knows when we're going to be meeting to discuss this. So I will defer approval of this until a date is set based on my colleagues' availability. So that being said, I'll move the rest of the consent.

So the motion is to approve items one and two and defer item three. Correct. All right. Thank you, sir. We have a motion and a second. Let's vote on that. Okay. That motion carries 5-0. And now we're on to our two discussion items for today. The first is a memo from Mayor and Council Members Campos, Ortiz, Dewan, and Condellas, a temporary moratorium related to detention and custodial facility on private property. We have two members on the group. Would anyone want to just kind of introduce the item before we move on to public comment?

No, yes. Thank you, Chair. You know, I just wanted to give a shout out to everybody who's here, who I imagine is going to speak in favor, whether you're our community partners or other, you know, as well as Mayor Mahan's office and Mayor Mahan himself, as well as the rest of the Brown Act for partnership on this is an important issue. I do have a question that I will ask after the public comment, but look forward to moving this forward in a judicious manner. Thanks. Okay, let's go into public comment.

Calling Brian, Jeremy, Musa, it looks like MUSA, and Akemi, please go ahead and make your way to the podium.

I agree with the memo you wrote, and I hope we can come to, I hope someday that, this kind of stuff really, what happens with those folks, they get, This whole thing has just been really hurtful to our country and to people. So I support the moratorium as much as you can. I know you don't have a lot of push in it because it's a federal institution, but take care.

Good afternoon, Chair Cohen, members of the committee, Jeremy Bruce with Amigos de Guadalupe Center for Justice and Empowerment. We're also part of IPEN. We really appreciate the leadership of Mayor Mahan and council members Campos, Ortiz, Candelas, and Duan to introduce the temporary moratorium on detention facilities. And we're also very glad that this will be coming to council in a very quick manner. So just want to say thank you for moving with urgency. This is another tool for our toolbox in slowing down this administration and protecting our immigrant community. We do want to urge the Rules Committee to amend the memo to include all property in the memo, not just private property. A recent CalMatters article highlights the risk of only focusing on private property. And we all know DHS has shifted to purchase private property to evade restrictive policies. So we ask that you consider. Thank you. Next speaker.

with CARE, the Council on American Islamic Relations, as well as with IPEN, and we strongly support the proposed temporary moratorium. We also want to urge the committee to strengthen it by amending the memo to ensure that it applies to all property and not just private property. There is a risk of a significant loophole by limiting the moratorium to only private property, especially as federal agencies are actively acquiring and purchasing private property to evade restrictions and expand detention capacity. We should ensure that the changing of ownership of a property does not allow a detention center to circumvent the reviews and safeguards established by this moratorium. The proposed facility near Gilroy demonstrates that the expansion of detention is already happening locally as we speak. this interim moratorium is an opportunity to proactively get ahead of these developments rather than react after the fact we urge the committee to close this loophole and expand the moratorium to all property and move this measure forward without delay thank you also calling miss rain daniella and kylie

Good afternoon, Kemi Flynn with IPEN. And I would just say Jeremy and Musa already outlined the priority issue that we're asking for the shift from private property to any property. And let me add that we're simply asking rules committee and for the authors of the memo to open that that open that window, it will obviously need to then be defined more carefully in the memo that comes forward for September 15th. So what I'm asking is don't close the door today, leave the opportunity so that that can be further developed and provide the most protection for our community. And I'll add that that's not only important for San Jose, your critical leadership makes a difference across the region. Other cities and counties are watching what's happening here. So if you set the standard a little higher by including more property, it's going to mean that your ordinance will be a model that will get replicated. So it has implications on a broader scale.

Hello, council members. You know, San Jose is a city that spears ahead with justice. That's the way I look at it, and I'm very proud to live here as an immigrant. Let me tell you, I'm very proud to live in a city that does what they say they're going to do. So please extend this as much as you can with time, with protections. We need to include all properties. You know, DHS is not playing by the rules. They're not following the Constitution, so we need to be radical in the way we act. So please, just extend the moratorium, right, so we can install them, really, because our families still in fear, and we need all the protections that we can get. So as an immigrant, I want you to keep thinking about when you do all of these decisions, who do you love? Again, again, that's the most important thing, because when we live with the heart.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Hello, Council Members. My name is Daniela Valdivia. I'm a resident of San Jose. And I want to just express my appreciation for your leadership and the speediness to introduce a temporary morandum on the detention centers and want to urge you and the Rules Committee to amend the memo to include any property, not just private property, because we need to do everything in our power to protect our community. And we need to make sure that we close all those loopholes. We need ICE out of San Jose and ICE out of the Bay. Thank you.

Also calling Sandra, Louie, and Samantha.

Good afternoon. Kylie Clark with the Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits. Other cities in Santa Clara County are looking to San Jose, and so I do think this is really important and very exciting. Part of the reason that we haven't seen the level of arrests here that we have in other areas is because we don't have a detention center nearby, so we really need to keep it that way. We also want to urge you to extend it beyond private property to include other properties, and I also want to emphasize the urgency of this and the need to get it done swiftly. So I'm really grateful that our council is united in protecting our immigrant community. I feel so lucky to be a part of this city, and I encourage you to approve this item with the expansion beyond private property. Thank you.

Buenas tardes, miembros del Consejo. Me llamo Sandra Muñoz. Soy residente de San José y valoro enormemente su liderazgo y su rapidez con la que han presentado una propuesta de moratoria temporal para los centros de detención. Queremos instarles a ustedes y al Comité de Reglas a modificar el memorándum to include any type of property, not just private property. We need ICE to leave San Jose. We need ICE to leave the Bay Area.

Good afternoon. My name is Samantha, and I am an organizer for Latinas Contra Cancer and the patient organizing committee. Thank you to the committee and city council for considering a temporary moratorium and slowing down this process. Many of the patients and families we work with already face barriers to seeking health care. Fear and uncertainty can cause people to delay critical medical care. We urge you to support this moratorium so our community members can access care promptly, safe, and without fear. We also ask to extend this moratorium to not only private property, but to public property as well. Thank you.

Chair Cohen, Vice Mayor Foley, it's a pleasure to see you. I am Louis Powell, Executive Director of Santa Maria Urban Ministry, located proudly in the Guadalupe, Washington neighborhood of District 3. The daily number of households turning out to us for supportive food has decreased 23% since January. This is certainly not because there is less need, but because people are afraid of the streets. This fear is not only hurting families, it's choking our local economy. With fear of leaving home means less footsteps on and foot traffic for local business exactly at the moment when the city is looking to expand that. I join our friends at IPEN in asking for this moratorium to be expanded to include all properties and let this be the first next step towards ensuring the safety of all of our people. Thank you.

Switching to virtual speakers, Jordan followed by Linda.

Jordan district 3, speaking in support of this resolution for the temporary moratorium. I also just have a quick question for the authors of the memorandum is the idea that once the. Moratorium is in place that the city would be. Implementing the toolkit and the model ordinance that was announced at last week's press conference, uh, was just uncertain if this is directly related to that, or if this is a different initiative, uh, supportive either way. Thank you.

Linda. Yes, hello again, Linda Hutchins Knowles. I'm with mothers out front Silicon Valley, although I'm speaking right now as myself, and I believe many of my members are also agreement with me. I'm in strong favor support of this memo and I appreciate your leadership. The mayor customers compost, Ortiz, Dwan, and. Um, this is an issue that impacts everybody in our community, not just those who are detained when children are separated from parents. It's a lifelong permanent psychological damage to the child as well as to the family. Um, it hurts everybody in the community, not just the detainees, but. Again, their family, their colleagues, employers, employees, neighbors. It damages all of us. So I appreciate your leadership in trying to prevent detention facilities being built. And I agree with the comments and support, including all property. Please make that so it can be as comprehensive as possible. Thank you.

Then we have Meredith, followed by Deshiel. Meredith.

Hello, my name is Meredith Hurley. I'm a voter in D9 and I strongly support the memo on the moratorium. Um, I'd like to amend the memo to cover all property and not just private property and speaking as someone who's been a volunteer with the rapid response network. Um, since 2017, I've accompanied many people to, uh, their visits with ice. Um, I've also visited Cal city detention center. And I really encourage all of you are making decisions, um, for our communities to really. Take time to visit these detention centers. Take time to go to the ISAP office in Blossom Hill and other local centers so that you really understand. Go to Gilroy if you haven't already. I want you to see what our community members are having to face. Thank you for your time.

Then we have Dashiell followed by Carmen.

Hello, Dashiell Leeds speaking as a D3 San Jose resident. This is a really good first step. I hope San Jose establishes long-term prohibitions on these kind of detention facilities. And as folks have said on both private and extending this to public property as well, I want to read an excerpt from your memo, quote, Without a temporary moratorium, applications for detention, holding, or processing facilities could proceed under existing regulations before the City has an opportunity to evaluate whether additional zoning standards, development requirements, or location-specific criteria are appropriate. The temporary memorandum would allow the City to evaluate potential environmental, infrastructure, transportation, public safety, land use compatibility, water and wastewater capacity, impacts on surrounding businesses and property, and other community member impacts before considering such uses. End quote here. This logic is excellent. It's great logic for why moratorium is valid and useful. And I think it actually applies to the next item as well on data centers and why you should have a moratorium on that as well. Look forward to discussing that later. Thanks.

Carmen. Good afternoon rules committee. My name is Carmen director of organizing and I'm speaking in support of the proposed temporary moratorium related to the detention custodial facility on private property. The memo appropriately recognizes that detention holding and processing facilities can have significant impacts on public health, safety, infrastructure, emergency response, public services, surrounding businesses, and the broader community. A chemist study. Well, San Jose can set the standard and be seen as a model for other cities to follow. And with that, I want to urge the city to strengthen the memo by making the moratorium applicable to any property within the city's jurisdiction, not just private property. The community continues to say no ice in San Jose, ice out of the bay. And I hope that the rules committee and city council continue to stand with us with our messaging by now allowing ice to build or operate any way in our city.

Thank you.

Back to the committee.

All right, well, thank you very much for everyone who came out today to speak on this item. We have comments from the committee, so we'll start with Councilmember DeJuan.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm proud to be part of this memorandum for the moratorium right here in the city of San Jose. But prior to approval and before expanding the moratorium to encompass all properties, within the city of San Jose, I believe the city attorney should provide some type of what you call legal analysis regarding the city authority to impose such citywide restriction. On top of that, yeah, please come on down. And the second question is, is there a conflict between the federal laws or federal supremacy when we implement this type of moratorium.

Good afternoon. Rosa Santatari, Chief Deputy City Attorney with the City Attorney's Office. We were very mindful in drafting the scope of this moratorium, keeping in mind the balancing of powers between the federal government and local authority. So we expressly attempted to not directly regulate the federal government, hence why Public property is not part of the scope. However, I want to caveat that with the city always has authority with respect to its property, as we did with the policy on not using our parking lots and garages. And I am informed that there is state level discussion with respect to public property across the state and that may address the concerns that have been raised by a number of speakers today.

Thank you. Regarding the conflict within the federal laws or federal supremacy, is there a conflict that we need to know?

I think in limiting it to private property, we don't believe there is a conflict.

What about public property?

And that is why the scope is limited to private property, because we cannot directly regulate federal public property.

All right, thank you very much.

Don't go anywhere.

Thank you so much.

First of all, thank you to my colleagues for bringing this memo forward. I think it's really important work that the council is bringing forward and the mayor, and I look forward to it coming to council for a full discussion. I have a further question about the public speakers all are requesting all, and I understand your comment about why we can't include non-city property, let me stay this another way. If we added in city property to this memo, is that acceptable or do we run afoul of any laws at that point? We already excluded that. Oh, in our prior legislation, that's right. We already said we can't use it. Yeah, that's right. Okay, so you're saying we run afoul of federal law if we extend it to all at this point?

i'm saying this moratorium scope is intended to comply with uh... concerns about supremacy clause and it's intended to be generally applicable hence why it's limited to private the concern about public property can be addressed in two parts the first is the city always has authority to decide how it wants to use its property so with respect to that we already have that authority right with respect to public property let's say across the state It's my understanding that there's pending state-level discussion on how to limit the use of public property for this purpose.

Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful. Lee, I have a question for you. Does this need to go to workload analysis?

No, it does not. I think the direction is for this to come forward on the 15th for the full council to hear and make a decision. um a lot of this work would be within the city attorney's office and pbce so we were already scheduled in october to go through kind of priority setting of that policy workload within that department so no workload analysis would be needed and if i can just make a suggestion one thing if the rules committee and i know council member candelas um could also direct this because he's supposed to speak next but if if uh the rules committee is is interested in the public lands question further between now and September 15th we could have the city attorney's office do a supplemental memorandum kind of explaining the legal analysis and exposure around that so the council can make a more informed decision on the 15th if you so wish

Okay, thank you. I'm not going to wait for Councilmember Condelas to make that motion. Because I have the microphone and I'm going to do it. I'm going to move the recommendation and include, direct the city attorney to submit a supplemental memo addressing the non-public, non-private land. Second. Second.

All right, thank you. I'm going to interject for a moment just with a question related to this and a suggestion. What this is saying is that there's a moratorium on the filing, acceptance, processing, and approval of applications. Now, presumably, if the federal government owns a piece of property and decides they want to bypass the city They're not going to be filing or asking for acceptance anyway of our land use decisions. I would imagine that to be the case. There would be no harm in us asking for a moratorium on accepting their application if they decide to actually apply to the city through our land use. Does that seem like a fair assessment? It seems to me that if our moratorium is on the filing, acceptance, and processing of applications that we do have authority not to accept an application from anyone on any piece of property in the city. Does that seem different than just the question of regulating use?

I think if the inclusion does not actually have a real effect, it undermines the way it's drafted and may be challenged facially, which may be counterproductive. And you are correct. We don't have land use authority over public property, federal public property in any case.

So what I was going to suggest, and maybe you can tell me if there's a reason why this doesn't make sense, is just to scratch out the phrase on private property. Since this is a moratorium on the, a 45-day temporary moratorium on the filing, acceptance, processing, or approvals of applications for the establishment, expansion, or change of use for detention and custodial facilities, period. We're not specifying what kinds of property, we're just saying we will not accept or process applications related to these uses for the next 45 days. open us up to any issues if we just were to leave the words on private property off of this? Based on your quick assessment, obviously you haven't done a full assessment. I know attorneys don't usually like to definitively answer questions like that, but I just want to know what your reaction is.

I think Council Member Kandel has had a comment. If I may, I think providing the flexibility and the latitude in the language of the memorandum that is drafted or the ordinance that is drafted is going to be key as part of this conversation. I don't want to wordsmith. any ordinance that then we're asking our attorney to go and defend us in federal court if it gets challenged. I want to make sure that we are enabling and providing our professional staff the best ability to fight in court. I don't necessarily want to win a wordsmithing battle here to look good. I want to make sure that we are doing everything we can to protect you know, my community. And so, you know, Rosa, I want to make sure that whatever moratorium is put in place and ultimately adopted by this council, when we adopt it, not if we adopt it, when we adopt it, that it can stand in the court of law. And so I will leave that to you, knowing that I want to make sure it applies. And I'm sure Congressman Liccardo, when he, him, the mayor in our office met to talk about this, that we are making sure that we're putting something that actually works and that puts together another barrier to what the federal government is doing, because you said it, that they're throwing the rule book out the window and they're doing everything they can, and this is something that's unprecedented. And so I think with knowing that the informational memorandum from the city attorney's office is coming, and knowing that draft language and the ordinance language is gonna come out, what's gonna make sure that our community's protected the most. That's what I care about. And so that being said, I look forward to having this conversation in a couple weeks, more importantly supporting something that's gonna protect my community. That's what I care about. And so hopefully we can get across the goal line and put together something in our toolbox that's helpful, thanks.

All right, well said.

Did you have any other comments you want to make at this point?

Okay, Council Member Kamei.

Thank you. I wanted to know why is it only 45 days?

Under the state law, this provision is pursuant to a moratorium on planning-related activity, and so it starts out as a 45-day temporary moratorium in order to evaluate what needs to be done to permit an immediate threat And if additional time is needed, there is an opportunity to extend that 45 days for up to 22 months.

I guess the reason why I bring it up is because we know, given we've got general plan update, all of the different things that are coming up, I mean, it's not like we have extra, extra staff to, you know, be able to hurry up and do it within 40, 45 days is very, very short. I believe. And so I was just curious as to the timing of it. I mean, because allowing sufficient time to me is better than the shortest amount of time.

And you're correct. So the 45-day is a statutory requirement as a first step. And if additional time is required, planning would be able to explain what additional time is required to complete the analysis, which may require an extension of the first 45 days.

Okay. But it's really going to be up to them then?

It's up to council. There is a first hearing on the 45 day and then they have to come back before the 45 day ends to request an extension for a longer term moratorium. I see. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. And just to follow up on this timeline, as Lee pointed out, we have an October 2nd, I think, public meeting at the Council to discuss planning PBC's workload analysis. That will be 15 days or so into this 45-day moratorium. At that point, we would find out potentially whether we need to come back to Council before the end of October to extend the moratorium further. Is that a fair assessment then of the timeline? Okay. that is fair except i believe the planning building code enforcement policy prioritization session is on october 6th oh it's over six okay great thank you all right i think we've had a great robust conversation and we're ready to vote okay that motion carries 5-0 and we are on to the second item which is a memo on data center community benefits and i'll just uh briefly introduce this item as one of the authors of the memo. We already have a process in motion right now to create standards and go through a series of public hearings and discussions about what we expect from developers who propose data centers in the city. It occurred to us that there were some gaps in that and we could include in this analysis what kinds of community benefits we might want to ask for as part of this process. This would roll into the work that's already being done and we're just asking for the slight expansion of scope of that original project that's planning to come back to council in December. So that's the introduction. Do we have any public comment?

Yes, starting with the in-person, Evan. Brian, Jaina, Isaac, please go ahead and make your way to the podium.

Good afternoon. As I mentioned earlier on the agenda review item, my name is Evan Brooks. I support this committee's work on the community benefits, and I want to raise a timing problem that it shares with the uniform standards that you already directed on June 10th. The industrial portion of 650 Harry Road is being actively marketed right now with a data center as the primary intended use. The rezoning enabling that is scheduled for council action next Tuesday, August 18th, but the city's first community listening session on the data center standards is scheduled for Wednesday, August 19th, the day after the rezoning. Both frameworks that this committee has directed are still being written. If entitlements move first, Projects filed in the interim escape rules the council has already determined are necessary. So I ask the committee to consider how these two tracks are sequenced so the rules arrive before the applications do. Thank you.

I'm Jaina and I'm a student at San Jose State in the Chicana on Chicana master's studies program. And it is clear to me that the uniform standards and best practices needs to include a cumulative public health study, environmental guardrails, and the adaptation of legally binding language for community benefits. Without these, the production of data centers will result in a death project that worsens the growing racial and social economic inequality in San Jose and the greater Bay Area. Thank you for your time.

I'm glad we're talking about this. I hope we could also push, I don't think the council can do much about it, but push for... The technology to run these things at room temperature, and that would pretty much eliminate the issues that had come up with the heat and the use of water and the use of electricity. There's technology already available to actually recycle the water, but that increases the cost of the electricity, I think. I'm not an expert at this. But keep pushing the technology because data centers are part of our life, and they're not going to go away any soon. If they do, our economy will go away.

Also calling Mitra, Lena, and Jasmine.

Hello, my name is Isaac from District 2. Currently, the memo for the data centers only has options to explore environmental impact right now. These aren't legally binding actionable items that commit to any substantial studies. Meanwhile, we've seen health impacts across the country. Most recently, I saw in Houston, Texas, we are seeing record numbers of stillborn calves being born outside of Houston, Texas, right next to data centers. It's been incredibly disappointing to see no concrete action being prioritized, even though these data centers nationwide are affecting our public health. Last time I spoke here was in April, and the team in charge assured us that we weren't operating at massive 900 megawatt data centers, but at maximum 900. But if we have currently, I believe it's 12 data centers being tracked right now, And with the, I believe we're looking at 42 total, eventually this math is going to even out and we are going to have what's effectively a 900 megawatt data center here.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Mitra Fabian. I've been a longtime resident of San Jose. I'm here to voice my opposition to the rapid building of data centers in our area. I appreciate this memo, but I really feel there are not enough transparent and meaningful efforts to get public feedback. There don't seem to be any cumulative public health studies or environmental guardrails. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that no one wants these data centers in their neighborhoods because of noise, light, and particulate pollution. We're uncertain as to how these data centers will affect power. PG&E already has trouble servicing their customers, and their infrastructure has proven unreliable and dangerous. Water supplies are always at a premium, and it concerns me that we would be directing this precious commodity towards these data centers. We implore the city council to think of the public first, especially neighborhoods that are lower income and disproportionately affected. Thank you.

Good afternoon again, Lena Drape with the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority. We appreciate this effort by Chair Cohen, Mayor Mahan, and Council Members Ortiz, Candelas, and Campos to acknowledge and address the known and unknown effects of industrial development such as data centers in our community. While we appreciate the proposed direction to the city manager, we urge the city to also pause the processing and accepting of new applications until these standards have been approved. We feel strongly that this is more reasonable and cost effective than continuing to accept proposals and then go back and reevaluate them after the standards are approved. This would also address what is clearly an unintended reverse incentive for rushed applications to be submitted now before sound regulations are in place. Again, the previous item regarding the proposed detention facility is yet another reminder of the importance of local land use protections. As the mayor wrote in his newsletter on July 26, revenue cannot be a permission slip to ignore quality of life or harm to the environment. We could not agree more and therefore urge you to make this very reasonable adjustment to the current proposal.

Hello, my name is Jasmine Jordan. I'm a student in design at San Jose State University, and I know that I speak for my classmates and for my peers at the building of data centers will be more of a community detriment than it will be a community benefit. The expansion of the AI economy and data centers has cut entry-level jobs for people my age and people graduating freshly out of college, and it destroys our future. On top of that, if you look into the environmental impact, this summer so far has been the hottest summer on record, the same as it has been the year before that and the year before that. Birds and the bugs that I used to enjoy seeing every spring, every summer, you don't see them anymore. And the building of data centers in San Jose will destroy our environment further than it already has been. I oppose this.

Thank you. We're also calling Carolyn.

My name is Carolyn Donlon. long-term resident of San Jose. And there are many, many issues with data centers, which other people have addressed. But I've written twice to the council about water use. And I think that one huge issue that everyone is forgetting is that we live in a semi-arid environment. We don't have the water. So please, please, please put people ahead of data centers. Thank you.

Moving on to virtual speakers, we have Dashiell followed by Linda.

Hello, my name is Dasha Leeds, D3 San Jose resident and conservation coordinator for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta chapter. Community benefits are great. In addition, we should be talking about a moratorium and pause here, or at the very least a pause in the voluntary and frequent discussions with data center developers that the city reports it's conducting. AI data centers produce infrasound, sounds below 40 Hertz that cause many health impacts, including headaches, dizziness, sleep destruction, anxiety, cardiovascular strain, and cellular stress. The AI industry doesn't have an answer to adequately mitigate infrasound because it penetrates solid barriers and can travel for miles. The city clearly understands the logic of a moratorium. As we've seen from the previous item, It's just unfortunate that the political will isn't here to proactively protect the health of our community. The trade-off you're asking us to accept is in exchange for some tax investment for our community to shoulder the health burdens imposed by AI data centers. That's little comfort to someone with a heart condition who will live in close proximity to infrasound or someone with asthma who lives near backup generators.

Linda? Hi, Linda Hutchins Knowles with Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley. I want to echo Dasha's comments as well as the letter from Alice Kaufman of Green Foothills. We request that the city put a pause on accepting and processing new data centers. Although number four attempts to remediate this by saying you will negotiate with projects in the pipeline over possible changes, that is not sufficient. We need a moratorium now to protect our public health and our environment. I want to read a quote from Indigenous wisdom. When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten, and the last stream poisoned, you will realize that you cannot eat money. Unquote. No amount of fiscal benefits can offset environmental damage. Even if they use recycled water, data centers inevitably release contaminated water, which may concern PFAS and other toxic chemicals. As much as I love libraries and fire protection, these won't address damages done to our environment, health, and climate. We need you to pause data centers now. Listen to the public. We're all demanding this. Thank you. Then we have Jordan, followed by Manny.

I thank you for taking my comments. Um, I agree very strongly with the previous 2 speakers regarding the moratorium. And I especially liked the quote about no amount of revenue can offset environmental damage. In the sense that this is. An improvement over the status quo, I support the. Uh, memo on the floor, but I do still think there's more work to be done that hasn't been directed yet. I still think we really need a cumulative to analyze the cumulative effects of all the data centers. We plan on building. And not just analyzing each 1 in a vacuum. I do like the idea of requiring green roofing. I think we need to go further than that. You know, maybe also have very dense tree coverage around these buildings. And just want to call out the idea of a portion of tax revenue being invested within an excess area. I think it's just a good idea in general and something we should apply in other contexts. Thank you.

Manny?

Good afternoon, my name is money, but color and I am youth director for the student led nonprofit Silicon Valley youth climate action as it stands right now with our current regulations and structure for developing data centers. The data center developments are not a net benefit to our community. we need to take the time to build these comprehensive standards that strengthen existing rules and create the circumstances by which any new data center developments would be a net benefit to our community. This is not to mention the environment. So I encourage you to pursue a pause on data center developments until these standards are finalized, as well as in the final standards, pursue really really forward-looking policies that will actually address the biggest harms from data centers, particularly air pollution, being very strict on any use of natural gas or diesel backup generators and pursuing battery storage as alternative.

And we have one more in person. Cleo, go ahead and make your way to the podium.

Hello. It hasn't been that long since the first AI data centers have been constructed, and already we see hellscape spreading around where these data centers have been constructed. Videos of people who live around them noticing black water coming out of their faucets, this constant ringing sound, and even unexpected health detriments to the people who live around them. I don't want that here. I don't want that for anyone. The amount of stockholder value that these AI data centers are going to make is not going to matter in 30, 40 years. But the birth defects that they cause, the environmental effects they cause, those are going to last. Those are gonna be what's remembered, not the amount of money that ends up in somebody's pockets, not other cities looking up to us for how many data centers we have, how much revenue we're bringing.

Thank you. Back to the committee.

All right, thank you. I don't see any hands. Do we have a motion or any questions, comments? Go ahead, Councilmember Arcandelas.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I think, you know, there's a lot of valid concerns that we've heard, not just today, but over the last couple months. And, you know, that was essentially the impetus behind trying to make sure that we're leading the country, given what we're seeing across the nation. in whatever happens here is up to par with what our community expects. I think there was one, there was a couple things, but one thing I wanted to touch on is, you know, there was an informational memorandum that came out today pertaining to the outreach processes, and I know we have a listening session coming up, but, you know, is there any other additional opportunities for community meetings? I know there's stakeholder meetings that are scheduled, Curious to hear from the administration on that.

City Manager, so an informational memo was completed today that should be available to you in the community. We do have the informational memos to discuss the community outreach and engagement plan. So just briefly, if it's OK, I'd like to go through that since I know most people haven't had an opportunity to review it yet. So we have been, since late July, actually having small meetings with stakeholders. And there's a full list in the info memo. just to get their feedback on data center and data center standards, but that includes groups like the Sierra Club, Mothers Out Front, IBW Local 332, Sheet Metal Labels Local 104 and many others. So there's a full list and we continue to offer those small meetings. In fact, we have two more coming up in the next couple of weeks. And we think those are important because it allows us to have that one-on-one communication and get that direct feedback. And usually we set up about an hour and we try to combine with one or two groups if that's possible or feasible. We do have the community listening session that's coming up on August 19th. And while it is a listening session, we're also providing some slides up front to provide context as to kind of what the data standards are, all the work that already gets done as part of CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act, as well as a number of things. But really we want to listen kind of what the interests are as to what you would like to see on the data center standards. We'll separate it into two things. One is the original rules that we had that was more technical. And then the second half would be related to the rules memo today that's related to community benefits and other standards. In between there, we also have a developer roundtable meeting because we want to make sure we meet with the developers. And then one of the key things we're listing at the community listening session is we'll actually offer up for anyone who's interested to have small group meetings. So we'll have sign-up sheets, electronic of course. I'm older, call it a sign-up sheet. It's all electronic so people can schedule meetings We're looking at having three, four, five people and be able to engage more on a small group basis. So we'll offer up this to anybody who would like to have a conversation with us. We'll follow up in late September.

I'm sorry to interrupt you for one second. Chris, I know you're leaving. I wanted to ask you a question. If you are able to stay, could you stay just for a few minutes? Thank you.

If I had eyes in the back of my head, I would have called them back, too. Then we have a Stanford polling session that's going to happen. In addition to that, I do want to highlight that one thing we have asked is if there's any community meeting, any additional meetings, any neighborhood groups that someone would like us to attend, we are happy to attend any additional meetings as well. So we'll follow up with those meetings, and then once we have draft standards, we'll come back with another whole community meeting session to present those standards and get feedback. trying to be as comprehensive as we can by having the big meetings, but also we have had a lot of small meetings. We'll offer up small meetings to anyone who wants to participate, and then we will have the two general meetings to just present all the information at once. We could add something additional if it's needed. I would like to see how much engagement we get from the small group meetings because they have found those to be very helpful.

Great, no, thank you, Manuel. I do intend to even host a few, I guess, community meetings in my district specifically. So I would hope staff makes themselves available to that or to any of my colleagues, frankly, who wish to take that effort, organize and get folks out. And then secondly, um you know that large format community session that you discussed you know it is an iterative session i mean yes final draft standards language is going to be available based on previous outreach but i'm hoping that folks who are not able to attend can still attend and be able to shape and or iterate in the process as as as members of the public and i'm hoping that could still be the case

Yes, so obviously if you cannot attend the meetings or if you cannot attend in person, we encourage everybody to send us written comments as well. And we're already taking all the feedback that we are receiving at previous council's meetings as well as this meeting to see how any of that feedback will fit into the standards. So we are keeping track of all those comments and taking notes of all those comments. One of the things we're hoping to do as part of what we bring to council in December is bring a summary, a high-level summary of all the comments that were received as part of all the one-on-one sessions, the small group sessions, all the meetings that we had here at the council chambers, as well as all the small one-on-one meetings that we had.

Thank you, Manuel. That's all I had. I did want to, you know, reemphasize that, obviously, one of the goals that we had is to provide enough staff flexibility in the design for legally binding standards and things that address the concerns of our community and helps move us forward in a way that's inclusive. Also with the importance of having strong workforce standards, project labor agreements, and emphasizing collaborating with our unions as well. Again, this isn't the final opportunity to review, supplement, or modify, but I think it's important that we have an opportunity to engage our residents, and I guess that's just as important. I just want to make that clear.

Yes, and let me just highlight something you just said, that if there's any meeting that any of the council members or any community that's interested for us to come and present, and volunteering myself and Erica to participate in that, we'd be happy to come out and have those conversations.

Great. Thank you, Manuel. And then lastly, I'd be remiss if I didn't plug the, you know, part of the community benefits, the Digital Inclusion Empowerment Fund. that we have historically have done with these small cell fiber developments that our city has authored and has allowed accessibility for people in our district who aren't necessarily able to get high-speed digital internet. And so this is a connectivity issue, it's an equity issue. And I know this is something that we've worked on, but because loss of resources, this is something that as a myriad of things that we can

be asking for with regards to community benefits this is one of those areas that's also including shout out to jill bourne for that thanks and with that i'll move our memorandum thanks all right we have a motion in a second uh and we're i do want to say i'm thankful manuel to have you here with with your expertise on this topic as part of guiding this process as we move forward in the next few months That's it. I don't have a question for you now. But I do have a question for Chris. I apologize for calling you out like that, but I want to just ask you a quick question. I hope it will be brief. We've heard this comment about people rushing to get applications and entitlements between now and December because this process is going to take until December. I just want you to clarify, if someone were to come in now and say we have a proposal for a data center, My understanding is it takes longer than six months for that to get to an entitlement, but can you just clarify so that people understand that we're not gonna be rushing entitlements between now and December?

That's correct. So as much as we like to focus on being efficient and working quickly with our applicants, Depending on the CEQA path, which for many of these larger projects is in conjunction with the CEC in a much longer process over a year. Certainly in SEP, a special use permit would take longer than six months. So anybody coming in now, we wouldn't anticipate going to hearing any time before sort of February, March would be our expectation.

If that were just a use permit, but if they were developing a new data center they have to follow every project on its own has to have an eir and if they submit now they would have at least a year of an eir before they would be coming forward okay just wanted to make sure that was on the record so thank you for staying around for a few more minutes for that um and obviously the the list of items in our memo number one of suggested potential community benefits is not meant to be exhaustive there's lots of other things including digital and inclusion and other things that might be worthwhile to include as community benefits so i appreciate that shout out from councilmember candelas Don't see any other hands, so let's vote. Oh, I'm sorry, we had, what is it? Seeing aye, or? You want to vote? Yes. Okay, we have a 5-0 vote in favor of that, and we'll move on to open forum.

Brian?

I'm not going to say this name correctly, but it's important to say it. Gerhard Krishnar, 1939, was the first young child that was killed in the Akshan T4 program. Between 500,000 and 750,000 people with disabilities and mental illness were killed after that. This directly led to the Holocaust and how they were, I hate to say it, efficient at it. People in our society are saying that this did not happen. Same people who say that the moon landing didn't happen and that COVID was a conspiracy. This did happen. My father went into one of those camps in World War II. It did something to him. To this dying day, we have to remember the past. Thank you.

Moving to virtual, Jordan, followed by Linda.

Hi, I want to thank Council for your vote yesterday to return public comments to Zoom for members of the public. There is 1 more action. I do request of counsel and it's related, but slightly different allows virtual participation. Not only for members of the public, but for the appointed commissioners that sit on. Advisory only bodies. This is an optional provision that can be enabled by a vote of council and then followed by a vote of the commissions in question. Um, it's only, uh. It's only in effect for six months and then needs to be reapproved. But this would give commissioners on bodies that have no power more flexibility. If they are traveling for work, if their public transit is late, they can call in and still participate in meetings and count as present and vote on things. So I ask you to consider this. Thank you.

Linda? Yes, hi, great minds think alike. I was also wanting to thank you so much for allowing remote public comments via both zoom and phone. This is a real equity and accessibility issue for our community. And I'm very grateful with the full time job that I was able to call in by zoom today participate. And for those with mobility and other challenges, childcare responsibilities school. Thank you. We appreciate that. Um, I want to echo Jordan's comment. I do think it'd be good to give commissions more flexibility to be able to speak remotely. And also, I'd like you to consider and please approve extending remote public comments to the community listening sessions regarding the uniform data center standards. My understanding from speaking with staff is that that is not the plan. They were amenable to having it live streamed so that people can watch. But I think it needs to be a two-way street that if you want to collect comments from the public, there should also be a chance to verbally communicate with community listening sessions. That should be provided in all three languages, English, Spanish, and Vietnamese that our community uses. Thank you so much.

Manny? Manny. Hello again.

My name is Manny Bacala and I'm from Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action. I'm also a member of the San Jose Climate Advisory Commission, though I'm just speaking as a resident. And I'd like to second the comments by Jordan and Linda regarding virtual public comments. Thank you very much to the city as a whole for bringing public comments by Zoom and phone back to all of these meetings. It is extremely helpful for my team of young people with our school schedules. It is the difference between us being able to use our voices and not. And I'll second their request for the expansion of the Zoom option. Thank you.

One more in person, Jasmine.

Hello, everyone. This is my first time coming to one of these meetings in person, and I want to say that it has been very sad, depressing, I guess, to see people on their phones during it instead of looking with people speaking in the eyes. And I also wanted to talk about your concern you had, Mr. Kandelis, earlier about extending the temporary moratorium to public land. that the federal government is corrupt. We live under a fascist government. And complying to corruption, you're turning over before you've actually tried to fight anything. So if you extend the moratorium on detention facilities to public land, it would be great for the people of San Jose to see our council members fight the federal government. Thank you.

Okay, thank you everyone. We are adjourned at 3.12 p.m.