City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Good afternoon. Welcome. Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the San Jose City Council on the afternoon of June 16th. I want to remind those joining remotely that the Zoom link is available on the agenda for today's City Council meeting. If you are participating online and wish to speak, please use the Zoom application and select the raise hand feature. Speakers will be called in order. When it is your turn, the city clerk will enable you to speak, and a notification will appear on your screen letting you know that you may unmute and provide your comments. All right, with that, Tony, would you please call the roll?

Kamei? Here. Campos? Present. Tordillos? Here. Cohen? Here. Ortiz? Present. Mulcahy?

Here.

Dewan?

Here.

Candelas? Here. Casey? Here. Foley?

Here.

Mahan? Here. You have a quorum.

Great, thanks. Now if you're able, please stand and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, individual, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.

Thank you. Today's invocation will be provided by Milan Ballanton, Executive Director of the African American Community Service Agency, and Council Member Mulcahy will tell us more.

Thank you, Mayor. It is my distinct pleasure to introduce Milan Ballanton, Executive Director of the African American Community Service Agency. Milan is no stranger to this body or likely to most people in this audience. Milan is a Bay Area native born in Oakland, raised in San Francisco, and nurtured in San Jose for the last 25 years. He earned an Executive Master of Public Administration from Golden Gate University and a Communications Studies Bachelor of Arts degree from San Jose State University. Go Spartans! He serves the community by helping to develop youth, embrace elders, and create community for all. Milan is in his 15th year serving as the executive director of the AACSA, an organization dedicated to providing quality educational, cultural, social, and recreational programs, services, and activities in order to perpetuate and strengthen cultural identity, values, traditions, knowledge, and family life. When Milan became the executive director in 2011, the agency had two employees and barely any budget. Since then, the agency has grown to a 15-employee operation, over 200 volunteers, and annually serves over 25,000 in San Jose and Santa Clara County. He is smart, charming, and makes his presence known in all the right ways. And boy, do he and his colleagues know how to throw a Juneteenth celebration enjoyed by so many this past Saturday in our downtown. Please welcome Milan Ballanton.

Well, thank you, Councilmember McKay, for that wonderful introduction and reminding me of my humble journey. And I'd like to add, I'm also well-dressed. My mother would like that one. Thank you to the Councilmembers who are here, as well as all of you, the public, which you are those that we all serve. I'm reminded today by a song my mother used to wake my brothers and I up. She would sing, rise and shine and give God the glory, glory. And now in my young man age, I understand why she raised us. with that song, as well as teaching us how to pray before we would eat our meals. So today, I will bring a prayer based on how my mother taught me. But I want to remind us of a little story that came to me. And it is, there is a marvelous story of a man who once stood before God, his heart breaking from the pain and the injustice in the world. He prayed, dear God. He cried out, look at all the suffering and anguish and distress in your world. Why don't you send help? God responded, I did send help. I sent you. When we tell our children that story, we must tell them that each one of them was sent to help repair the broken world and that it is not the task of an instant or of a year, but a lifetime. David Wolpe. So if you can all bow your heads to this prayer. For those who do not believe and for those who do, you are still present under the prayer. Proverbs 19, 17 reminds us that helping those in need is essentially serving and helping God. God, we ask you today to cover the minds and the hearts of the council members who will listen to the public today. With over 900,000 residents and lives that visit this magical city. It is in this time that we are hurting for housing, but we are also healing for homes. It is important that our words, which sometimes can come across sharp, help us make them even kinder. Teach us to make decisions that may be risky but will ultimately show better results for the people. Help us to remember that we are humans having a human experience. Help us to remember when we make the decisions today that those will impact generations to come. Remind our council members in their hearts that they are loved and they are cared for and that their time away from their families serving the public is covered under you. Remind the city staff who work tirelessly to meet the mark of thousands of people that you are covered under the blessing. And to the public servants, the nonprofits, and to those who are on the street corners waiting for us to come get them and put them in places so that they can continue to be a part of our society, that they are also covered under the prayer. Remind us to be kinder, to be more loving, and ultimately to be more patient with one another. This is the prayer. Amen.

Thank you for that invocation, Milan. It's great to see you as always, and thanks for organizing a great week of Juneteenth celebrations. We are on to our ceremonial items. Councilor Cohen, if you would join me at the podium, we will recognize and proclaim Myositis Awareness Month.

Medically referred to as idiopathic inflammatory myopathies. Myopathies? Myopathies, that's right. Sorry about that. get my medical terminology down. Myositis is not a single disease, but a spectrum of conditions including dermomyositis, inclusion body myositis, and polymyositis. It is a group of rare, incurable autoimmune diseases in which the immune system attacks a healthy muscle tissue, leading to chronic inflammation, severe weakness, and disability. It requires urgent funding to discover cures, expand limited treatment options, and provide emergency financial relief to struggling patients. Myositis is caused by the body's immune system mistakenly attacking its own muscles, and in some cases, the skin, lungs, and heart. It leads to progressive muscle weakness, severe pain, fatigue, difficulty swallowing, and sometimes visible skin rashes. It is a chronic, lifelong illness. While some patients achieve stability, there is no cure, and it can become life-threatening if untreated. Awareness and advocacy are needed so that funding can be increased in order to study effective treatments. There's only one FDA-approved therapy for any form of myositis. Doctors primarily rely on off-label immunosuppressants, which carry heavy side effects. Because the exact triggers are unknown, research is desperately needed to decode the disease's pathology so scientists can eventually prevent, reverse, or cure it. The diseases affect only 50,000 to 75,000 people in the U.S., and because it is so rare, many doctors may never see a myositis patient. So funding is needed to educate clinicians and improve diagnostic tools. Treatment for patients is incredibly expensive because of long-term physical therapy, mobility devices, and medications. Many lose their ability to work and require assistance for daily living and emergency household expenses. Awareness can prevent lifelong disability. Early diagnosis and aggressive treatment can preserve abilities, and these types of care seem only to be available with big university hospitals, and much of California is a medical desert for this high level of care. Organizations like the Myositis Association rely entirely on private donations to give seed grants to early career researchers. This early funding allows scientists to gather enough preliminary data to qualify for larger grants. I learned about myositis last year when my friend Vicki was diagnosed with it. Vicki was unable to be here today, but with us is Shauna Nielsen, patient advocate and co-lead of the Myositis Association Support Group. Welcome, Shauna.

Thank you.

Thank you to the Mayor, City Council, and David Cohen for spearheading this proclamation. Vicky was unable to be here, but I am here in her place. With the myositis community, the Myositis Association, and myself, Shauna Nielsen, we thank you for recognizing Myositis Awareness Month this year. Awareness is essential to preserving muscle strength and function for people who live with myositis, and to increase the funding for research to this very rare disease. This autoimmune disease affects the muscles, and in some cases, many other organs. It's a rare autoimmune disease that includes lots of inflammation in the body. I'm here as a nurse, a support group leader, and a patient. We are on a mission to improve the lives of people affected by myositis through increasing awareness, advocacy, and research funding. The disease causes immune system attack and this resulting inflammation, which can cause severe disability. My own journey began with skin symptoms but progressed to significant muscle weakness. At my worst point, I was down to just 30 steps a day. Because many physicians only encounter one or two cases in their entire career, myositis is often misdiagnosed or diagnosed late, and time is muscle loss with myositis, a loss that may not be recoverable. The average diagnosis is age 50, Primarily in women, 70% of the patients are women, and many attribute this initial weakness to menopause, age, or general deconditioning. Some cases progress rapidly while others progress slowly and lead to irreversible disability, people suffering for years without knowing what is wrong. I'm very fortunate to have had a quick diagnosis and transfer to Stanford 26 years ago, and I've recovered about 75% of a normal ability. living with a lifelong condition and its treatments remains demanding, challenging, and costly. We thank you again for this proclamation and for the opportunity to raise awareness. We hope that this increased awareness will lead to greater research funding and ultimately a cure. Thank you.

if you could just step to the side just a little bit, this way, because of the podium, there we go.

Thank you all so much.

Thank you, appreciate you being here.

You too, thank you.

All right, Vice Mayor Foley and Council Member Mulcahy, if you would join me at the podium, we will recognize the San Jose Sports Authority and we'll invite our guests to come on down as well.

You're speaking.

Okay. Okay, great. As all of the members of the Sports Authority who are here present come down and join us, it's my pleasure to talk about them and highlight their work. Good afternoon. What an exciting time to be celebrating San Jose Sports Authority's 35th anniversary. There's never been a more exciting time for sporting events in San Jose. Don't you agree? Right now, San Jose is in the thick of FIFA World Cup celebrations. And thanks to the San Jose Sports Authority, San Jose isn't just watching history happen, we're helping to make it happen. Across our region, teams are practicing, venues are set to host games and watch parties, and communities are excited to be part of one of the biggest sporting events in the world. Today, along with Mayor Matt Mahan and my fellow Sports Authority member, Council Member Mulcahy, we are honored to recognize an organization that has spent 35 years putting San Jose on the map. Since 1991, San Jose Sports Authority has served as the city's sports commission, driven by a mission to increase economic development, visibility, and civic pride. And wow, what a year this has been. In our biggest moment yet, Sports Authority has helped position our region to host not one, not two, not three, but four of the world's premier sporting events, starting with the National Women's Soccer Championship last year, then Super Bowl 60, NCAA men's basketball, and yeah, we're right in the middle of FIFA. These large sporting events bring visitors from around the globe, generate tremendous economic activity for our local businesses, and showcase San Jose and the greater Silicon Valley on an international stage. But sports are about more than just the competitions. They bring our community together. And this year we've seen just that, through activations outside of the competitions such as concerts, Superfest, fan experiences, and other community events that have energized our city and demonstrated that San Jose is a world-class destination for sports and entertainment. Sports Authority has led the way. Its impact extends far beyond major events. For decades, they have expanded opportunities in sports, especially for women's sports in San Jose, including helping welcome Bay FC and helping to bring one of the four new expansion teams in Professional Women's Hockey League to our city. They've also inspired future generations through programs like the San Jose Sports Hall of Fame and the Reach Youth Scholarship. And if you haven't attended the Reach Youth Scholarship, you should. It is the most moving, impactful event that we do in the city and that the Sports Authority does. They've also inspired, none of this success happens by accident. It takes vision, collaboration, and an incredible team. So for that, we have a few people to recognize. Executive John Poach, whose leadership and passion have helped elevate San Jose sports profile to new heights, and his small but mighty team, Darren, Chase, Shayla, and Trevor, Tommy O'Hare and our city staff for their partnership in helping prepare San Jose for this historic moment, and San Jose Sports Authority Board President Charlie Foss, our fellow board members, many of them are here, and everyone who volunteers their time and expertise to advance sports in our community. And I'd just like to give an acknowledgement for olympian and board member ann cribs and also for founding member dean monroe who are here as we continue the world cup celebrations throughout our city i also want to invite everyone to join council member george casey and me this a blatant plug for our Friday, July 3rd Activation Day South Bay Soccer Fest. That's your opportunity to see three knockout games in Almaden Lake Park. Hope you'll join us. Thanks to Sports Authority's efforts to support World Cup watch parties. Thanks to all of their efforts. Thanks for everything that you do, including so many other activities coming to San Jose that I'm not even mentioning right now. Congratulations to San Jose Sports Authority on 35 incredible years of service, leadership, and community impact. Before the mayor presents this commendation, it's my pleasure to introduce the person who has helped lead this historic era of sports and entertainment since 2017. Please join me in welcoming John Poach.

Thank you, Vice Mayor, Council Member McKay, Mayor Mahan, members of the council, and our city manager. I'm just honored to be able to follow the footsteps. Dean Monroe founded the Sports Authority with the city back in 1991, served 15 years as our opening executive director, followed by a stellar 10-year service by Patricia Ernstrom. DEAN RECRUITED ME IN 1998, SERVED AS A TOURNAMENT MANAGER FOR THE NCAA COLLEGE CUP THROUGH 2000, AND THEN HE RECRUITED ME TO TAKE OVER THEIR AFTER-SCHOOL INITIATIVE CALLED THE INTERCITY GAMES, WHICH IS THE AFTER-SCHOOL ALL-STARS WHO WERE THE EMPATHISTS TO CREATE ACES, PROP 49 FUNDING, THAT IS FUNDED TO CALIFORNIA TO THIS DAY. SO I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN SPORTS POLITICS SINCE 1998 AS A VOLUNTEER, THEN AS A BOARD MEMBER IN 2008, AND NOW THE HONOR OF FOLLOWING DEAN AND PATRICIA AS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. THEY SET OUR NORTH STAR AND OUR GOAL IS SIMPLE, TO MAKE SAN JOSE A PREMIER SPORTS DESTINATION AND THE SOUTH BAY AND THE WEST COAST. SO I WANT TO THANK THE COUNCIL, THANK TOMMY O'HARE FROM THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE FOR HIS INCREDIBLE LEADERSHIP, AND THANK OUR MIGHTY BUT SMALL STAFF, AND ESPECIALLY THANK OUR PARTNERS THROUGH OUR BOARD, MATTHEW MARTINUCCI, RICKY, I SEE, AND MUKI WITH THE AIRPORT, ALONG WITH ANOTHER 24 STELLAR BOARD MEMBERS. Thank you for the honor, and thank you for entrusting us to bringing these events to San Jose. Thank you.

And colleagues, I know I went way over time.

All right.

And our final ceremonial item, Council Member Tordillos has joined me at the podium. We're going to recognize and proclaim June 19th as Juneteenth.

Thank you, Mayor. Good afternoon, everyone. Today, I have the pleasure of introducing Lavera Foster of the African American Community Services Agency, located right down the street here in District 3, as we celebrate Juneteenth here in the city of San Jose. Juneteenth marks the announcement of freedom to enslaved African Americans in Galveston, Texas on June 19, 1865, more than two years after the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation. Juneteenth celebrations date all the way back to 1866, originally starting with church and community gatherings in Texas and evolving over the years into the diverse celebrations we see today, such as access Juneteenth in the streets in the Sofa District, which I had the opportunity and pleasure to join over the weekend. So before the mayor presents the proclamation, I'll now turn it over to Laver to tell us a little bit more.

All right. Good afternoon, Mayor Mahan, Council Member Todillos, and members of the city council and community members. On behalf of the African American Community Agency and many individuals, families, and organizations who work to preserve and celebrate African American history and culture, I am honored to accept this proclamation recognized on Juneteenth in the city of San Jose. Juneteenth commemorates the day when news of freedom finally reached enslaved African Americans in Galveston, Texas, more than two years after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed. It reminds us that freedom delayed is freedom denied, and that the pursuit of justice requires both vigilance and action. Today, we celebrate the resilience, contributions, and achievements of African Americans throughout our nation's history and here in San Jose. We also recognize that Juneteenth is not only a reflection on the past, but a call to continue building a more equitable and inclusive future for all. And with a lot of the programs and community engagements that we've had, it's always great to see our elected officials, see our community members just come out, like come together with our organizations and really just doing this as a community together. Because we can only really serve our community and recognize our history if we are doing it as one community. So I thank you all who have been participating in our programs and that continued work that we must continue to do to really recognize our people within our city of San Jose and also towards like throughout our country overall. So thank you Mayor Mahan, Council Member Tordillos, the city of San Jose for his recognition and for joining and honoring the significance of Juneteenth. We are grateful for your partnership and commitment to celebrating this important chapter within our history. Thank you.

All right, we're on to orders of the day. Do we have any changes to the printed agenda? Not seeing any, we'll move on to the closed session report.

Yes, Mayor and Councilman, closed session to discuss items one through five as listed on the agenda, and there's nothing to report out on these items. Item number six with regards to personnel evaluations has been continued until next Tuesday.

All right, thank you, Sena. We are on to item 3.3, approval of various budget actions for fiscal year 2025 through 2026. Tony, do we have public comment on item 3.3?

My Zoom just blinked out.

Yeah, well, I have one hand.

Elizabeth?

Is this?

YES, SORRY, WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL ITEM 3.9. TONY, ANY OTHER HANDS?

I HAVE NO OTHER HANDS, AND I'M GETTING ZOOM BACK UP ON MY COMPUTER, SO WE'LL BE SMOOTH NEXT TIME.

OKAY, NO PROBLEM. OKAY, GOING BACK TO THE COUNCIL.

MOVE APPROVAL.

SECOND.

THANK YOU. OKAY, TONY, LET'S VOTE.

Motion passes unanimously.

Great, thank you. On to item 3.4, adoption of the annual appropriation ordinance and annual funding sources resolution for the fiscal year 2026 through 2027 budget and resolution establishing the fiscal year 2026 through 2027 appropriation limit. Tony, do we have public comment on item 3.4?

No, I have none.

Okay, coming back to the council. Okay, not seeing any hands. Toni, let's vote.

Still waiting on one, there we go. Motion passes unanimously.

Great, thank you. Next is the consent calendar. Council Member Campos would like to pull item 2.7 for comment and I believe motion on a separate vote? Or just comment?

for a separate vote.

Okay. And then Councilor Condellas, I believe, would like to pull item 2.10. Is that right? And I know a few of us have recusals on that same item. And then we'll have the remainder of the consent calendar. Here's what I'd like to do just to keep this simple. Why don't we take item 2.10 first. I'm going to hand... I'M GOING TO GIVE A QUICK RECUSAL DISCLAIMER AND OTHER COLLEAGUES MAY NEED TO DO THE SAME AND HAVE THE VICE MAYOR MANAGE ITEM 2.10 AND THEN I'LL RESUME MANAGEMENT OF THE MEETING. I WILL BE RECUSING MYSELF TO From voting on item 2.10, as I receive contributions from a principal at Urban Catalyst greater than $500 within the preceding 12 months, I will turn things over to Vice Mayor Foley to take a separate vote on this item, and then we'll return to the rest of the consent calendar. Vice Mayor.

Thank you. Are there any other colleagues who need to recuse themselves? Council Member Ortiz.

Council Member Ortiz here, I also have to recuse myself from this vote based on a donation over $500, thank you.

Council Member Cohen. And I will as well accuse myself because of a contribution from a principal of over $500.

Okay, thank you. Do we have any public comment on this item?

Yes, on 2.10, I have three speakers. Richard, Kathy, and Becky, come on down. And as a reminder, as you come on down, 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. Go ahead and step forward as authorized by law. You have one minute.

Thank you, Council Member Candelas and Mulcahy for pulling this item. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council Members. I'm Kathy Sutherland, co-president of the S Plus NI and a 40-year resident of Griffith Avenue. We have a long history of supporting dense and affordable development in our neighborhood, and we supported the new hotel and mirror image housing project on Josefa one block away. The agreement being proposed today unexplainably links the purchase of property owned by Urban Catalyst South First Street to our proposed project on West St. Carlos Street over a mile away. We ask that you bifurcate the projects, approve the purchase of South First Street, and come back to council to approve the $975,000 escrow holdback when development plans are completed for Gifford Avenue instead of by the arbitrary December 31st date. We worry the developer will use this linkage to pressure planning staff, the planning commission, and members of the community to rush approval of the 276 residential units without proper design and planning.

Thank you, that's your time. Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Rebecca Spitz. I live on Gifford Avenue. I've lived there for 10 years. This item raises a simple question. If the Gifford Apartments project is a good project, then why does it need this transaction attached to it? Given that the Gifford project has not yet completed its entitlement process, why is the city entering into a financial agreement tied to the project, moving forward before it has been approved? Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Richard Mazin, a member of the Delmas Park Neighborhood Association for about two decades. The Delmas Park Neighborhood Association welcomes infill development and has been patiently waiting to hear from urban catalysts for a very long time. Urban Catalyst has been sitting on the Gifford property for years. Why the rush to get an approval project now, an approved project now? It feels like the escrow hold back with the December 31st deadline is a way to pressure planning staff to rubber stamp a subsidized project and limit community engagement. We ask that you bifurcate or defer approval of this item. so i want to thank the council for everything you guys have done for our our neighborhood on behalf of the delmas park neighborhood thank you that's your time back to council thank you thank you for the public comment council member candelas

Thank you, Vice Mayor. My questions are for Eric, and so while Eric makes his way down, I want to take an opportunity to touch a little bit about what Kathy and neighbors have said and have brought up. In the letter received, I think there was a mention about concerns around environmental review, specifically at the site closer to the Knox Goodrich property. Could maybe speak about the environmental concerns?

Sure. Thank you, Council Member. So Eric Sullivan, Director of Housing for the City, as part of the acquisition process, the housing department worked with the Office of Economic Development and Cultural Affairs to ensure we do a comprehensive phase one and phase two, which are just more in-depth environmental reviews at this site to ensure that it is fully clear and this site for acquisition has cleared both testing.

Great, thank you. Yeah, I know that's something that was expressed and I appreciate you answering that. The second pertains to the community design standards that were mentioned as part of this project and the, no, no, before the project and specifically, you know, the concerns that some of the neighbors brought up around engagement and, you know, going into You know past, you know today assuming today's approval goes forward. What does that? interaction with The neighborhood leaders with the developer and what city staff what does that look like and maybe you can shed light into that?

Sure having been briefed on some of the community engagement prior I spoke with the developer and they have committed to giving due consideration to some of the exterior material changes and that have been expressed as concerns from the neighborhood, and we'll engage in that conversation to give that due consideration accordingly.

Okay, great. No, that's wonderful. It's my expectation that they continue to meet and continue to have... a genuine dialogue and an opportunity to make progress on something that's going to be hopefully more housing units and an opportunity for families to live and thrive in our city. And yeah, that's it for now. And if I didn't cover anything, I'm sure my colleague council member, okay, he will. Thank you.

Thank you. Council Member Mulcahy.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Condellas. I think he sort of got at a couple of the things that we were interested in. Continuing dialogue and that the decision today doesn't usurp that opportunity for our Delmas Park neighbors to continue to talk about improving Um, the project itself that is attached to this creative, but in some ways complicated transaction that you're talking about, I, we may need some guidance from the city attorney, but can you just sort of help illustrate for us that these, while they're tied together by making a decision on one, it doesn't take away the community input on the other.

Sure, and I will comment to that. Thank you, Council Member, for the question. So the way we've designed this transaction is to provide an incentive for the other transaction, which is a gift for apartments, to go forward so that we're able to benefit from picking up a piece of critical land within our downtown area. at the same time encouraging more housing production at the Gifford Apartments. The transaction does not mandate, require, or otherwise limit any forms of community engagement on the Gifford Apartments. It's just designed ability as an incentive we want you to move this forward we know the developer is looking to bring the project under one of our incentive programs so we'll have to come back to council in the fall as part of this work but these two things are bridged together but they are not in any way tied together and one does not approval of one does not fast track approval of the other thank you um you know the delmas park

neighborhood especially the folks on Gifford who you know several were here today you know have dealt with successful and unsuccessful development in their neighborhood the block right behind Gifford as an example that faces Delmas is an old dinosaur project that has been left there unfinished right but then you know deeper into West San Carlos corridor a new hotel the same developers building a project right across the street from that hotel. So they've been part of the kind of both the uplift and the challenge from development in their neighborhood. Another affordable project that was built with no parking that is a burden on the neighborhood and so forth. So I appreciate not only them showing up today, but continuing to dialogue. And at the end of the day, everybody started with, We recognize we're in a transitional area and we want this to happen. So I just want to make sure that we're mindful of that, and this is coming from an experienced community group. The other thing, they're sort of so involved in cheerleaders for San Jose, the one thing they are asking about is the affordability program around this project. Can you talk about that and what our hopes are for this particular project?

Yes. So currently, as part of the GIFR development, there's a 5% inclusionary housing set aside for low-income families. We are now in exploration conversations to expand that for up to 20 units utilizing our master leasing tool. So we're in those conversations now. And again, we'll have to come back to counsel for authorization once those details have been settled.

Great.

To expand further affordability.

Okay. And just the last thing, and we can, I just want to sort of get it out there as something that we've been talking to this particular neighborhood about. San Jose has been talking about gateways in and out of downtown. We've got San Carlos, which is a very important gateway in and out of downtown. We've got an opportunity at what is already a very well-lit 87 bridge that you're sort of crossing underneath. Some opportunities for improving that area might be a helpful add to this project, and we can talk about that further. But for the neighborhood's sake, wanted to put that on the table as well. Thank you, Eric.

Thank you. Council Member Tordillos.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just wanted to speak briefly on this item since the parcel under question of acquisition is in District 3 and wanted to emphasize that I think this really is an ideally situated site in one of downtown's most important corridors directly in front of the Santa Clara Street light rail station as well as across the street from the home of the future downtown BART station so this acquisition represents a really rare opportunity for the city to play a role in building more housing in one of the most transit connected blocks anywhere in our city contributing to the city's goals of increasing residential density downtown also supporting affordability for our residents and increasing vibrancy in the downtown core We're also acquiring the site for what I would consider a very attractive price. I'll notice it's a 60% discount relative to what the previous owner paid for this parcel back in 2019. And we're also benefiting from some of the capital investments made on the site from the previous ownership. And then in terms of how this interacts with the Gifford project, I would just say that I think the holdback structure uh agreement will provide the city some important leverage to ensure that that project does move forward i would emphasize that the city has an interest in seeing that project move forward into construction as soon as possible and note that while the city has definitely seen an increase in building recently which is good to see that last year we still only hit 33 percent of our arena target as a city so we need all of the housing we can get the gifford project is again a centrally located well-connected neighborhood And I think that there should still be ample opportunities in the months ahead for the community engagement as that entitlement process moves forward. So I think this really is a slam dunk deal for the city. I'm excited to see plans for this site come together over the next couple of years as the city works to find creative solutions to improve affordability for our residents. So I'll be supporting the acquisition and I urge my colleagues to do the same. So I will with that move the staff recommendation for item 2.10.

Do I have a second? Okay, I have a motion and a second. Seeing no further hands, let's vote on this item.

Motion passes with eight to zero votes with the aforementioned recused.

Thank you, I turn it back to you, Mayor.

Thank you so much, Vice Mayor. Okay, so we now have item 2.7, and I'm going to turn to Council Member Campos.

Thank you, Mayor. I've pulled this item to register a no vote.

Okay, we will need a motion from someone then to vote on it separately.

Motion to vote on it separately.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, A MOTION TO ACCEPT ITEM 2.7. CORRECT. TO APPROVE ITEM 2.7. TONY, DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM 2.7?

I DO NOT.

OKAY. BACK TO THE COUNCIL. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER HANDS. LET'S VOTE ON ITEM 2.7.

Motion passes 10 to 1 with Campos voting no.

OK. We now have the remainder of the consent calendar, colleagues. Move approval of the remainder of the consent calendar. Second. Great. I don't see any other hands. Tony, do we have public comment on the remainder of the consent calendar? We do not. OK. Going back to the council, let's vote. All right.

Motion passes unanimously.

We got through consent. Thank you. All right. We're on to land use consent. This is item 10.1a, rezoning of real property located at 15 Cottle Road. Do we have public comment?

No, I have none for this item.

Okay. Coming back to the council, do we have a motion on item 10.1?

Move to accept.

Second.

Great. I don't see any hands. Tony, let's vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. Okay, we're on to item 3.1, report of the city manager.

Thank you, Mayor. I do not have a report under 3.1 today.

All right, being efficient. We are on to item 3.5. This is approval of terms. We're going to have City Manager McGuire is going to, I think, make opening remarks that relate to items 3.5 through items 3.8, but we will vote on them separately. City Manager?

That is correct, Mayor. Thank you very much. We are very pleased to announce and bring before the Mayor and City Council overall tentative agreements on successor memoranda of agreements between the City and the Association of Building Mechanical and Electrical Inspectors, also known as ABMEI, the Association of Legal Professionals, also known as ALP, and the San Jose Police Dispatchers Association, also known as SJPDA. The term of each agreement is July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2029, so three-year agreements, and each agreement has been ratified by the respective unit. It includes items that are important for the city and beneficial for city employees in both economic terms such as wages and non-economic terms such as enhancements to the city's artificial intelligence policy. There are many, many people involved in reaching this agreement that we want to thank the city council, of course, for their support and guidance through this process. The negotiating teams for each bargaining unit for the time and effort they put into these negotiations, including on the ABMEI negotiation team, team members Sean Maresco, John Van Avery, Tim Ferrant, and ABMEI President Gary Mira. ALP President Tara Chaffee and ALP negotiation team members Julia Van Roo and Brian Kimball. SGA PDA President Mary Censeri, SGA PDA negotiation team members, Yasmine Dioli, Delfina Gallardo, Leonardo Silveira, Heidi Vieira, SGA PDA's Labor Consultant Tom Sagow, and SGA PDA's Counsel Greg Adam. Lastly, I want to thank the city's negotiating teams, including Director of the City Manager's Office of Employee Relations and Director of Human Resources, Ram Kumanjan, Elsa Cordova, Sarah Steele, and Hashana Braun. Every year we must establish our budget priorities to address critical issues. Together we've made a decision that workforce stability remains a high priority for the city, which is reflected in this agreement in a physically responsible manner. Thank you again to ABMEI, ALP, and SJPDA and to the city's negotiating teams. Because of their collective and creative efforts, these agreements were reached through the negotiation process before the previous agreements expired and are being presented to council today for formal approval. Additionally, the administration is recommending compensation and benefit increases to executive management and professional staff in Unit 99 that are comparable to those negotiated in these agreements. And that's the end of my comments. Thank you.

Thanks so much, Jennifer. And I also want to just extend my thanks to Jennifer, you and your team, everyone who was at the bargaining table, both on the administrative side as well as our bargaining unit, our union representatives, and really thrilled that we have a number of agreements here. in front of the council. We'll start with item 3.5, which is approval of the terms of an agreement with the San Jose Police Dispatchers Association for the term of July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2029. Because there's no presentation, we'll start with public comment if we have any.

I have no cards for this item and no hands online.

Okay.

Move approval. Second.

All right, just pausing. I don't see any hands from colleagues, so let's vote on item 3.5.

Motion passes unanimously.

Great, thank you. Onto item 3.6, approval of the terms of an agreement with the Association of Building, Mechanical, and Electrical Inspectors, also known as ABMEI, for the term of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2029. Tony, do we have public comment?

I have no cards or hands.

Great. Coming back to the council.

Second.

Great. And I don't see any hands. Let's vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. We're on to item 3.7. Approval of the terms of an agreement with the Association of Legal Professionals, or ALP, for the term of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2029. Tony, do we have public comment?

I have no cards or hands for this item.

All right. Thank you. Coming back to the council.

Second.

Great. I see no other hands. Let's vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. And item 3.8, approval of compensation and benefit changes for executive management and professional employees in unit 99 and other unrepresented employees, that's units 81 and 82, for the term of fiscal years 26-27, 27-28, and 28-29, an amendment to City of San Jose pay plan effective June 21, 2026. And Tony, do we have public comment?

I have no cards or hands.

Okay, coming back to the council. I see council.

A hand actually just went up as I was saying that for Chris. I've got to switch. Chris, do you have one minute?

Association and on the board of South County Business Alliance. So I'm really not in a position to judge on this particular topic, but I just want to be cognizant that your city budget, as you know, is $5.5 billion for less than a million residents. So that's over $22,000 for a family of four, which is exorbitant. Everything a la carte looks good, but what is the trade-off if you're gonna be giving these raises? What city services are you gonna be reducing? Because I think most people, based on public comment, I did read the public comments on the next agenda item, are overwhelmingly saying, no, let's not make it easier to raise taxes. And this is essentially what you have to do when you keep spending more and more. So I hope you're giving a very close eye on anything that causes the expense budget to go beyond the $5.5 billion and instead focus on what can be done to reduce it. Thank you.

Back to Council.

Okay. Thank you. And I see Council Member DeWan. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. I would support the item, but however, I would ask that the unionization of Unit 99 into MEF be delayed until, important question, answer for my staff and many other staff that they felt that they were out of the loop and they not sure and understand what is the process what are their you know the pros and con so I moved to delay the unit 99 into MEF until Questions or answer I would say let's say give it up um two months Answer those questions or answer So council I appreciate the comment.

Let me I'm not sure that these two things are directly tied I understand the relationship, but let me turn to our city attorney To try to understand if that's germane to this Item or there's a different forum where those questions would need to be addressed. I

Council Member Dwan, might I suggest that the better forum might be on Tuesday for some of the, because I believe Labor will be on discussion again for the council next Tuesday. And they're not necessarily related, but your questions might be better answered there.

But we are voting to- Approve the contract today.

Yes.

So I would imagine the question then must be answered prior to approval of the contract, right?

You can put these particular contracts down until next Tuesday.

This isn't a contract. This is just the compensation and benefit changing for all Unit 99. This item doesn't contemplate the employees going from this unit to being a represented MEF. That's not part of the action on here. This is just giving the same increases to the people that are in unit 99 so that would be a separate conversation in closed session if if if the city attorney would uh would like to agendize that for council discussion discussion in that case i'll just uh recant my uh motion okay thank you council member return to councilor tortillas

Thank you, Mayor, and wanted a quick clarifying question. Not sure if it's for Aram or for the city attorney, but my understanding is that the 18th floor staff that is unionized are already represented. Is that correct? Okay, so just wanted to throw that out there. And with that, I will move approval of item 3.8. Second.

Okay, thank you. I don't see any other hands. Tony, let's vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Great, okay, thank you. We're on to item 3.9. Tony, there's no presentation, so do we have public comment?

Yes, I have public comment, both in person and online. And before I call names, I want to state as a reminder, speakers must comply with the city's code of conduct, which is also available on the slide on the screen and on Zoom. Please direct comments to the body, limit remarks to the agenda item, and observe the time limit. Conduct that materially disrupts the meeting or interferes with others' ability to participate may result in muting or removal as authorized by law. I'm going to start with... Six people in person, and then I'll bump over to the online. Enrique Navarro, Carl San Miguel, Stephanie Ligzi, Rebecca, Jean, I think it says Hunt, and Jenny Zhao, come on down. You do not have to speak in the order that you're called, and you have one minute. First person in the microphone wins.

GOOD AFTERNOON, CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR. OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS ALONE, THERE HAVE BEEN OVER 1400 ATTEMPTS TO PASS SPECIAL PARCEL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS ON PROPERTY OWNERS. 814 SUCCEEDED IN ADDING TO THE COST OF OWNING REAL ESTATE. THIS DOES NOT HELP HOUSING AFFORDABILITY. IN 2024, SAN JOSE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PUT ON THE BALLOT MEASURE R, A $1.15 BILLION BOND Based on the median price of the properties in Santa Clara County, that will add $900 per year for 30 years to the property owner. This is just one example of the liabilities the property owners have to absorb. With this amendment, it does not take away the ability to ask for the parcel tax or special assessment. It only increases the threshold to pass. The request for a higher percentage to pass is because everyone votes on the measure, but only the property owners inherit the burden. So I request that you not take a position.

I'm sorry, that's your time. Next speaker. As a reminder, the timer is available on the podium as well as above your head.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Council, and staff. Local government should be accountable to the people who fund them. Government exists to serve residents, and residents deserve confidence that their tax dollars are being used responsibly. Every year, the City Council makes important budget decisions. Those decisions impact the quality and cost of services residents receive. But residents should also have a voice when government seeks additional revenue. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association measure is based on the idea that raising taxes should require broad public support, not just a decision made by elected officials. The principle is especially important today when politics are polarized and many people see their costs continue to increase faster than their incomes. Supporting this measure is not about opposing government, I'm sorry, that's your time.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Mayor and City Council. Enrique Navarro with the Santa Clara County Association of Realtors. We ask that you reject this memo outright. San Jose is facing a serious affordability crisis. We are now recognized as the most expensive and least affordable city in the world, and that should be a wake-up call. This memo focuses on protecting revenue while ignoring the reality faced by taxpayers who provided that revenue and Residents are already carrying the burden of rising costs, mandates, fees, taxes, assessments, and regulations that make it harder to afford a home and harder to stay in the community that they built. You cannot continue adding costs onto residents and then act surprised when frustration grows. People are making difficult choices every day just to keep up, and the government should understand that reality. This council doesn't speak for all of San Jose's residents. The city belongs to one million people who live here, and they deserve the opportunity to decide this issue for themselves. Reject this memo and let the citizens of San Jose speak. Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Stephanie Ligse and I'm a resident of D6. City Council should not oppose a measure designed to give taxpayers a stronger voice. At its core, this measure is about one simple principle. Taxpayers should have a meaningful say before they are asked to pay more. Residents across San Jose are feeling the pressure of rising costs, from housing to groceries, utilities, insurance, and everyday expenses. For many families, there's not a lot of room left in the household budget. When people are struggling with affordability, it's understandable that they want stronger protections and greater accountability before new taxes are imposed. This measure does not prevent government from providing services. It simply asks that a major tax increase receives a higher level of public approval. The City Council should respect that voters created these protections for a reason and should not take an official position opposing a measure that gives residents more control of their own finances. Please reject this memo. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council members. My name is Gene Hunt, and I speak also in opposition to this memo. I believe that the... Title to it is actually a misnomer. This Jarvis Gann initiative does not limit the people. It actually enhances their power over taxation to themselves. So I implore upon you to remain at least neutral. Do not take a position on this particular item. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker.

Good afternoon. On behalf of Bay Area Homeowners Network, who represents thousands of small property owners, we respectfully ask the council to reject this memo and to remain neutral on this measure. Allow voters to decide. Taxpayer deserves a direct voice when the government seeks additional tax burden. Many of us already feel we are heavily taxed and believe that California does not have a revenue problem. What California has is a spending problem. This measure is about giving voters the opportunity to decide whether government spending should face additional limits. We hope the council will respect the democratic process and allow residents to make that voice the choice of themselves. Thank you.

Thank you. Mark, followed by Chris.

Do we have any other cards in the chamber?

None in the chamber. I'm going to Zoom. So Mark, followed by Chris. And then after Chris will be Elizabeth.

Am I live?

Yep, go ahead.

Thank you. This is Mark Hinkle, president of the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association. I urge you to avoid taking a position on this, Minister. Current law is a big mistake. It requires 50% plus one. But is that really 50% one with low voter turnout in a very small community? And what about those under the age of 18? Are they going to have to pay sales tax if it goes up? And those who are immigrants, not only do they have to pay sales tax, but property taxes, and they are both non-representative in the measure. So I think we should support save Prop 13, and I urge you to avoid taking a position.

Thank you. Chris, followed by Elizabeth. After Elizabeth will be Ramin.

Thank you. I also urge you to vote no on this resolution. As I mentioned, the city of San Jose already has an operating budget of $5.5 billion. I almost stutter with that number. It's so massive. That number needs to be reduced, right? And I know what's going to happen. You're going to pass this, and you're going to say under the premise of, oh, the sky is falling, and we're going to have to cut all these services. Well, that's based on the fact that a significant portion of your budget is predicated on Equity theft right IE property transfer taxes, even if somebody buys a home and sells it at a loss, they have to pay on that lower sales price where they had a loss. That is not a reasonable thing. So, yes, it does stop property transfer taxes, which it should. And so the conversation should be about reducing the spending and getting a better funding mechanism for the city and an overall lower cost envelope expense envelope. Secondly, You know, the people that are supporting this, like Silicon Valley Council and nonprofits that wrote to you, they directly benefit from this. But the overwhelming majority of citizens do not want this.

Elizabeth, followed by Ramin, and then Simon.

Elizabeth Briarley of Silicon Valley Taxpayers and the County Libertarian Party, San Jose resident. I'm concerned for both substance and principle. It's highly inappropriate for council, any elected body, to take positions on ballot measures that are the people's prerogative to vote on. Your sworn duty as our elected reps, protect the individual rights of us, the people, not use your time and thus illegally our taxpayer money to tell us how to vote. The 250th anniversary of America's government by and of the people, perfect time to remind everyone that it should be we who tell you how we're going to vote, not the other way around. As for Save Prop 13, three examples how our vital Prop 13 protections have already been bypassed. Legislature blowing past the lawful limit on locality sales tax rates, crushing low-income folks, mosquito vector district poison pill to automatically increase its rate later without a vote of the people, open space authority, parcel tax, same thing. Please don't take a position. Instead, spend your time trimming the budget back to basics as Mayor Mahan campaigned on. Thank you.

Ramine, followed by Simon. And then after Simon is Jordan. Ramin. Okay, Simon followed by Jordan and then Lena. Go ahead. Simon, you unmuted and then you muted again. Go ahead.

Okay, thank you. Hello, my name is Simon Levchenko. I am 24 years old. I was born in Santa Clara and raised in San Jose. I've lived here almost all of my life. I'm here to state my opposition to Proposition 13 and to share my support for Matt Mahan and Governor Newsom in their opposition to Proposition 13. Proposition 13 decreased California's property tax revenue by more than half one day after it came into effect in 1978. Proposition 13 revolt resulted in the severe underfunding of public services and bankruptcies of multiple major municipalities in the state many years after it came into effect. Proposition 13 resulted in two suicides in the Almaden Valley neighborhood of San Jose, which ultimately resulted in a neighborhood counseling service being created. Albeit it was so poorly funded that when I suffered severe bullying and sexual abuse at Leon High School, I was never even made aware of this counseling service. France and Germany both have better social services and higher social cohesion than the United States, and preferential taxation is illegal there. We need all the tax dollars we can get. California is not a retirement home, and it is not an inheritance. Thank you for your time.

Jordan, followed by Lena and then Ramin.

Hi, this is Jordan District three resident. I'm speaking in support of the Council Memorandum on the floor today, and I'd like to thank the Council members who are bringing it forward. This measure that's being considered only increases voting power for some people and decreases voting power for other folks. I would like to tax myself for certain things that can only be funded collectively. I can't purchase a park or create a park. But if me and the million neighbors want to tax ourselves to fund a park, we should be able to do that. And so making it so that you need a two thirds majority is weakening one set of folks at the expense Yeah, it's weakening power for some, and I don't like that. But even more importantly is the retroactive canceling of the existing taxes, and San Jose should be able to tell the voters what that impact will be. Thank you.

Lina, followed by Ramin.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council Members. Lina Drape with the St. Clair Valley Open Space Authority.

Lina, you need to speak up. We can hardly hear you.

Oh, apologies. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council members. I am speaking on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority to express our support for this memorandum to oppose this initiative. Thank you.

Ramin.

Can you hear me? I'm sorry.

Yes.

Perfect. All right. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council members, and a shout out to my Rep George Casey in District 10. I'm talking to you as a voter and resident of San Jose. I urge you to oppose this measure. I share the retroactivity concern and even local fiscal watchdogs do, but the cure is a revote, not a city-funded campaign against taxpayer protections. Polls already show this measure is losing. An opposed resolution changes nothing. It just depends on staff time and a state fight while you cut services. Please stay focused on the residents. Thanks.

Back to Council.

All right. Thank you. Coming back, thanks to everybody who weighed in on the issue. Let me turn first to Council Member Casey.

Thank you, Mayor. Whenever government opposes taxpayer protections, I believe we should stop and ask a simple question. Why? Why is government uncomfortable with requiring broader public consent before making more money from people who earn it? Why is government asking taxpayers to trust it with fewer safeguards rather than more? That is the question before us today, and it's why I can't support the city's opposition to the Local Taxpayer Protection Act. At its core, this debate is about who deserves the benefit of the doubt, the taxpayer who earned the money or the government that wants to spend it. I believe the taxpayer is the answer. Every dollar collected by government began as someone's paycheck, someone's savings, someone's investment, someone's small business revenue. It belongs first to the people who earned it, and that is why taxpayer protections exist. Not because government is bad, not because public services are unimportant, but because government will always have reasons to seek additional revenue. There will always be another worthy program, another urgent need, another crisis to address. The demands on government are virtually unlimited, The resources of taxpayers are not. And at every level of government, we see the same pattern. When revenues increase, government finds new ways to spend them. When revenues fall short, government asks for more. The one thing government rarely says is enough. I know some of my colleagues are concerned about the potential impact this measure could have on Measure E and the revenues it generates for homelessness and the affordable housing programs. I understand those concerns. But the fact that government has grown dependent on a revenue source is not an argument against taxpayer protections. It's the very reason taxpayer protections exist. If taxpayer protections disappear whenever government identifies a worthy use of money, then there are no protections at all. For nearly 50 years, Proposition 13 has reflected the belief that taxation is different. Taxation is one of the most significant powers government possesses because it directly affects the earnings, property, and financial security of our residents. The Local Taxpayer Protection Act preserves an important check on that power and reaffirms a simple principle. Our first responsibility is not to protect government's access to revenue. Our first responsibility is to protect the people who earn that revenue in the first place. And for those reasons, I cannot support the city's opposition to the Local Taxpayer Protection Act.

Thanks, Council Member. Let's go to Council Member DeJuan. Thank you, Mayor.

LAST WEEK AT RULES COMMITTEE I SECOND THE MOTION TO BRING THIS FORWARD TO COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSION. SUPPORTING AN OPPOSED POSITION FOR THIS BALLOT MEASURE WOULD SIGNAL APPROVAL OF A LOWER THRESHOLD FOR ADDITIONAL TAXES AND REVENUES AT THE EXPENSES OF OUR RESIDENTS I HAVE CONSISTENTLY OPPOSED INCREASING THE TAX BURDEN ON SAN JOSE FAMILY, AND MY POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. JUST THE OTHER WEEK, WE DISCUSSED THE AFFORDABILITY CHALLENGES FACING OUR COMMUNITY, MOST NOTABLY OUR IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES. WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT TOO MANY RESIDENTS ARE BEING PRICED OUT And that the cost of living in San Jose have reached an unsustainable level for our working families, seniors, young people. I trust voters to make their decision at the ballot box. So for these reasons, I cannot support the opposed position. I yield my time. Thank you.

Thanks, Council Member. Let's go to Council Member Cohen.

All right, thank you. This is a kind of a regular occurrence of organizations in the state directly attacking local governments. Cities and jurisdictions across the state are stepping up this year to join together to protect their ability to go to their voters and ask for majority approval of ballot measures that enhance revenue. This doesn't decrease a threshold or make any change. It upholds that democratic principle. Not only though does this make it very, very difficult for future INCREASES TO OCCUR, IT RETROACTIVELY REMOVES KEY REVENUE THAT JURISDICTIONS ACROSS THE STATE COUNT ON. RIGHT NOW, ACTUALLY, LEE, CAN YOU CLARIFY FOR ME? SOMEBODY CAN CLARIFY. JENNIFER CAN CLARIFY THE DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR MEASURE E THAT WE RECEIVE ANNUALLY FROM OUR REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAXES. BETWEEN $50 AND $100 MILLION A YEAR.

IT HAS GONE UP TO $100 MILLION.

IT HAS BEEN OVER 100 IN SOME YEARS. This is revenue that was approved by the voters, revenue that helps us fund affordable housing projects, that funds our programs to address homelessness. And if this measure were to pass, most of our interim housing system would have to be shut down. And just to be clear, also, I heard some numbers a lot tonight about a $5.5 billion budget. Obviously, that is our total budget. Our general fund budget's about $1.7 billion. The rest of it is enterprise, like running the airport, a sewage treatment plant, and things that don't come out of our general fund and are not flexible funding that the council has control over. About 60% of our $1.7 billion general fund pays for public safety, which is an important function of local government. But there are also a lot of other functions that local government needs to pay for. And we are being asked daily by the residents of our city to address homelessness, cleanliness, and things that Measure E helps us afford. The sinister idea of retroactively taking funding away from governments is what makes this measure so sinister in my mind. It's not a question of changing the rules going forward, it's a question of changing the rules that we were operating under previously and would make it very, very challenging for many jurisdictions across the state. It's actually an interesting, as the representative on the California League of Cities, I was there when the board of the League of Cities voted to oppose this measure and it was a unanimous vote, a unanimous vote from cities with incredible variety of political backgrounds and viewpoints because they know that being able to go to their voters and ask their voters to support key initiatives is one of the things that helps them continue to govern their local communities. So I am, along with my colleagues, I'm asking this council to join this coalition and oppose this ballot measure that would be so devastating to San Jose's general fund going forward and I will move approval of the recommendation or the memo to oppose a Ballot measure which is currently titled 1983, but we'll get a ballot number later.

Thank you Thanks counselor a second from counselor toward Dios who will turn to next I

Thank you, Mayor. I want to start by thanking Councilmember Cohen for his leadership in this effort, as well as Councilmembers Kamei and Campos for their partnership on this. It is really hard to overstate how disastrous the impacts of this initiative would be to the lives of residents across California, but also here in San Jose if it were to pass. As Councilmember Cohen noted, it's critical to note that this measure is not just about increasing the threshold for future taxes, but it would also invalidate existing taxes that are already on the books. And statewide, local governments would stand to lose billions of dollars that support fundamental city services from housing and homelessness, response to street cleaning and garbage pickup. Here in San Jose, if this measure were to pass, the city would lose between 98 million and $130 million in annual revenue every year between Measure E and our conveyance taxes, decreasing local funding available for our city's homelessness response and public infrastructure improvements. I know we all just got out of budget season last week and we talked a lot about the contingency plan that was put together if the Measure A had not passed. And there we were looking at about $10 million in annual revenue. And we saw already at that dollar amount what the impact to services would be with elimination of police patrols, closing of libraries, and cuts to other essential programs. So I would like all of us to think very carefully about what $100 million in cuts to revenue would mean in terms of what we are able to do for our residents here in San Jose. I also think it's important to highlight the unfortunate disinformation campaign that we've already seen emerging around this initiative. As we see many supporters attempting to frame the initiative as somehow being a referendum on Prop 13, I think we all have a responsibility to inform our residents and let them know that that is simply not what this ballot initiative is. Far from protecting the voices of residents, this initiative would actually restrict residents' right to initiate and vote on local measures, and it would overturn measures that have already received majority approval from residents through a lawful and democratic process. I believe in the democratic process, and I believe that this measure fundamentally subverts that process. Given the unique threat this initiative poses to the city of San Jose, we should not only take a formal position against it, I think we should also be working to educate our voters so that they understand what they are voting for come this November. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. We'll go to Council Member Kamei.

Thank you so much. You know, I fully respect all voter decisions, but, you know, I find most concerning that the initiative would apply retroactively, potentially invalidating numerous voter-approved local revenue measures, and that's one of the reasons why I signed on to the memo, because it would apply retroactively. And so I will be supporting the motion on the floor in this instance.

Thanks, Councilmember. We'll go to Vice Mayor.

Thank you. I appreciate the comments of the members of the public who spoke on this issue and their passion about taxation and their right to vote on these particular issues. This motion does not preclude them or the public from voting on this It's going to come to us in November, and every member, every voter has a right to vote yea or nay on this. But having to echo what Councilmember Tordillos mentioned, having just finished balancing a budget with a $50 million deficit, And yes, it was passed based on a transit occupancy tax on our hotels that was approved by the voters too. If we had not passed, our cutbacks would have been small but impactful. If this passes, the cuts will be huge. I am particularly concerned about the retroactive nature of it. Jim, is it easy for you to just tell us what the retroactive impact would be on this budget? how much, having faced, just solved a $50 million deficit, what deficit would we have faced with the retroactive deficit or loss of measure E?

Thank you for the question, Vice Mayor. Jim Shannon, City's Budget Director. So yeah, as I understand it, if the initiative were to pass, it would impact taxes that had already passed, which would include our Measure E. It would also include our construction and conveyance tax. Measure E, as Jennifer says, instead of 50, 55 million, this year we will probably get past 70 million, as an example, and that would effectively sort of eliminate our interim housing program and really reduce most of our funding for homelessness prevention on a going forward basis. Also, our CNC taxes, generate $45 to $60 million on an annual basis. So the capital support for libraries, parks, recreational facilities, fire stations, that goes away. And so there would presumably need to be closing of some of those facilities and or some transfer from the general fund to make sure you had some minimum amount of capital funding to make those viable.

WHEN YOU SAY TRANSFER FROM THE GENERAL FUND, THAT SOUNDS TO ME, WE DON'T HAVE FUNDS IN THE GENERAL FUND TO TRANSFER AND BACKFILL THESE DOLLAR AMOUNTS AT ALL. SO REALLY IT PUTS US IN A HUGE BUDGET DEFICIT AND WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO BALANCE OUR BUDGET. AND CUTTING EXPENDITURES IS NOT HOW WE WOULD BE BALANCING THIS BUDGET IN RELATION TO THIS HUGE LOSS. THANK YOU FOR THAT. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. The CNC taxes are taxes that have been on the books for years. The treasury transfer tax was approved, I think, in 2020 by our voters. I'm not a huge supporter of taxes, but the rollback... nature of this or the the retroactive nature of this is just so onerous i cannot i cannot sit here as a council member and support the idea to vote no on this i appreciate the comments of council member casey and council member duan but i will be voting in support of this in this motion

Thanks, Vice Mayor. Look, I think my colleagues have sort of said it all. I do want to thank those who came to speak and recognize the very real impulse that I think is driving the desire to constrain tax increases. It does feel like Every ballot we're asked to approve more taxes, more bonds, more cost, and residents are really struggling with the high cost of living and the size of government and our overall tax burden is certainly a big piece of that. So I want to acknowledge that. And we are going to have to push ourselves even harder to get more efficiency and value and impact out of every dollar we spend at a time when the need so far exceeds our revenues and raising cost of living for our residents really shouldn't be an option. So we are grappling with a really difficult situation. That being said, as my colleagues have noted, I was gonna also highlight that the immediate impact in San Jose, and it would be immediate, this would not be something phased in, is something between 98 and $130 million per year. The entire interim housing system would be shut down overnight effectively, and you would have over 2,000 people put right back on the street because the reason we built that system is we had thousands of people in tent encampments literally without a bed to offer them. Our conveyance tax is what's paid when a developer on new development pays to improve local roadways, parks, and rec facilities, libraries, fire stations, and other public infrastructure in the vicinity of the development. If we were to lose these two sources of revenue, You'd be looking at a hit to the general fund in an amount that would be equivalent to losing revenue that supports the pay of over 185 police officers. Those of us who have just been through this budget process know how hard it is to find a few hundred thousand dollars on an ongoing basis, much less 100 million. Ongoing again, that's not to minimize the importance of us being hyper efficient disciplined responsible with every dollar we have but the retroactivity is incredibly concerning and Would make governing the city incredibly challenging Residents would be very unhappy with the with the impacts. I also appreciate counselor Cohen Referencing the big numbers that get thrown around so five point five or six billion dollars The vast majority of those dollars are fee-for-service within city enterprises. That means the entire operation of the airport. You fly, you pay a fee on the ticket to maintain the operation of the airport. Wastewater treatment, garbage collection, energy, all the power, all the energy, all the electricity and gas in the city, water for municipal water users. These are all massive fee-for-service city enterprises that are included within that $5.5 billion budget. The actual general fund, the math is actually pretty simple. So it's 1.6, maybe it's 1.7 billion this year. There are about a million people in the city. So that is basically $1,600 or $1,700 per resident for police, fire, road paving, parks, libraries. You think about I mean, you're paying $100 a month for cable television, maybe $150. We're talking $1,600 per year per person to have police and fire protection, roads paved, libraries, community centers, parks maintained, trails maintained, and a number of other services. So not making an argument for... Expanding government. I think we could have a very reasonable argument about going forward. What should the threshold be? We might not all agree on that But the retroactivity piece would be devastating for the city and I do want to make sure people are clear on what they're getting for their dollars Because we've heard some big numbers thrown around that don't accurately reflect the city's budget Okay, I appreciate comments from colleagues. Let's Tony let's take a vote And this is on the motion to oppose the ballot measure.

Motion passes nine to two with Duan and Casey voting no.

Okay, thank you. We are on to item 8.1. This is the public hearing on the Alum Rock Santa Clara Street Business Improvement District and assessments for fiscal year 26-27. And I will ask my colleagues to bear with me. We are going to have scripts for each of the next few items here. Okay, so as I just said item 8.1 is the public hearing for the approval of the alum Rock Santa Clara Street Business Improvement District annual budget report and the levy of assessments for fiscal year 2026 through 2027 before I open the public hearing has the city clerk received any written protests from affected businesses in the alum Rock Santa Clara Street Business Improvement District no written protests have been received for the alum Rock Santa Clara Street Business Improvement District Thank you at this time. We will open the public hearing

I have no cards for this item and no hands.

Thank you. We will now close the public hearing. Since the business owners in the Alum Rock Santa Clara Street Business Improvement District have supported the proposed levy of assessments, I will now ask the council to consider adoption of the resolution approving the budget report of the Alum Rock Santa Clara Street Business Improvement District and levying assessments for fiscal year 2026 through 2027. Do we have a motion? Oh, I'm sorry, Council Member Ortiz, I didn't see your hand. I apologize, go ahead.

Just move for approval. This is something that's been a long time coming. Really excited for the businesses in District 3 and District 5.

Definitely, and thanks for your leadership in helping to get this going. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you. Okay, I don't see any other hands. Tony, let's vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

All right, thank you. Item 8.2 is the public hearing for the approval of the Downtown Business Improvement District annual budget report and the levy of assessments for fiscal year 2026 through 2027. Before I open the public hearing, has the city clerk received any written protests from affected businesses in the Downtown Business Improvement District?

No written protests have been received from the Downtown Business Improvement District.

Thank you. At this time, we will open the public hearing.

I have no cards or hands.

Okay, we will now close the public hearing. Since the business owners in the downtown business improvement district have supported the proposed levy of assessments, I will now ask the council to consider adoption of the resolution approving the budget report of the downtown business improvement district and levying assessments for fiscal year 2026 through 2027. Do we have a motion? I'm sorry, Council Member Tordillos.

Move approval.

All right, I'm getting it. We'll let the council member in his district. Okay, we have the second. Toni, let's vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. Item 8.3 is the public hearing for the approval of the Japantown Business Improvement District annual budget report and the levy of assessments for fiscal year 2026 through 2027. Before I open the public hearing, has the city clerk received any written protests from the affected businesses in the Japantown Business Improvement District?

No written protests have been received from the Japantown Business Improvement District.

Thank you. At this time, we will open the public hearing.

I have no cards and no hands.

We will now close the public hearing. Since the business owners in the Japan Town Business Improvement District have supported the proposed levy of assessments, I will now ask the council to consider adoption of the resolution approving the budget report of the Japan Town Business Improvement District and levying assessments for fiscal year 2026 through 2027. Council Member Tordillo.

Move approval. Second.

Thank you. Tony, let's vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. Item number 8.4 is the public hearing for the approval of the Alameda Business Improvement District annual budget report and the levy of assessments for fiscal year 2026 through 2027. Before I open the public hearing, has the city clerk received any written protests from affected businesses in the Alameda Business Improvement District?

No written protests have been received from the Alameda Business Improvement District.

At this time, we will open the public hearing.

I have no hands or cards.

We will now close the public hearing. Since the business owners in the Alameda Business Improvement District have supported the proposed levy of assessments, I will now ask the council to consider adoption of the resolution approving the budget report of the Alameda Business Improvement District and levying assessments for fiscal year 2026 through 2027. Councillor Mulcahy.

Move for approval. Second.

Great. Tony, let's vote.

Motion approved unanimously.

Thank you. Had I known there would be this many scripts in my future, I would have opposed all of your business improvement districts. Just kidding. They're doing great work. Okay. While I catch my breath, we're going to move on to item 8.5, actions related to grant agreements for multiple interim housing sites. And we do have a staff presentation, I believe, a brief one from Eric Sullivan, our director of housing. Eric, feel free to begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Council. So I work solely on director of housing. I'm bringing forth this memorandum to fund our interim housing sites for the next fiscal year. I'll go through a brief presentation today, and then we can take questions afterwards. So very quickly, this is a quick listing of our 22 sites that we have throughout the city of San Jose, encompassing just about 2,200 beds. There's about 1,800 units located throughout the majority of the districts, including both our leased motels, our home key sites, our interim housing sites, as well as our motel voucher program, which provides temporary housing for families. We have across the different side, we house just roughly about 2,500 individuals across the entire portfolio, including sites where fathers and children share beds, as well as couples share beds. We have a very large contingency of pets, just over, we just did a recent count of just about 625 pets. with the average occupancy just given the new sites that have come online exceeds 90% and we post our weekly occupancy rates already on our existing dashboards and we continue to track our transitions from these sites to permanent placements. Permanent placement takes many forms, could be housing which is the big majority of it but it also takes forms to other care beds, or exits from the program for reunifications with family members, so it takes many different times. To date, our overall turn rate is roughly about 40%, as we're then looking to optimize the system in order to improve overall performance, as well as standardizing our delivery of services across our programs. five providers that provide the majority of our services across the entire portfolio. In addition to our actions here for approval of the contracts, we're also going to be taking actions on our home key site, which is Life Moves, as we're making an operator transition there and thereby recouping some funds that were initially laid out for that program. to then pay for the new operator that will be coming on site. And we continue to work on various ways to improve and optimize the service delivery including centralized security services. You'll see a differential in the last slide that I'll show here compared to the memorandum as the last slide shows the all-in costs including motel leases plus services and security contracts at roughly 69 million. while the services side provided by our partners is roughly 60, it's at 79 million, services provided by contracts is 69 million. We also include in this our continuing work that was detailed in the homelessness annual report memorandum released just about two, three weeks ago, our work around CalAIM, though there's some challenges to the execution of some of that work, and the continuing streamlining that we do as we're looking to implement our property maintenance system as we bring in that contract forward to council in August, and then revisiting our work around optimization of food delivery and case management. And so overall, we have a diversity of funds that goes into this system, including our measure E dollars, our half funds, general funds, multi-source funds, PHLA, kind of state funds, as we provide a comprehensive set of services sourced through various initiatives in order to keep the system moving forward as we look to, as per the conversation earlier today, optimize every dollar going into the system. That includes standardizing a lot of our delivery funds of services with the partners across the board. So that is the quick summary and I'm happy to take your questions.

Thank you, Eric. Let's first go to public comment if we have any.

Elmer, come on down.

Elmer Martinez- Good afternoon, Mayor and City Council members. I'm Elmer Martinez-Saballos, Director of Public Affairs at Life Moves, here to express our gratitude for your continued partnership and investment with today's proposal. Life Moves is proud to continue serving as a part of the community's critical safety net through programs like Guadalupe, Safe Parking, and our Motel Voucher Program. And we remain committed to providing interim shelter and pathways to permanent housing for our neighbors who are experiencing homelessness. And we support the investments before you today, which will strengthen the city's interim housing portfolio. And we're glad to be a part of the network heading into the next fiscal year. And Life Moves looks forward to continuing the great work with the City of San Jose. And we thank the Council for its ongoing commitment to bringing homelessness to functional zero. Thank you.

Thank you. Back to Council.

Thank you. Let me turn to Council Member Campos.

Thank you, Mayor. I want to begin my remarks by expressing appreciation to the city's administration for their remarkable work. The staff recommendations represent the culmination of the significant efforts between the Housing Department, Public Works, the City Manager's Office, City Attorney's Office, and many other critical partners working to rapidly establish and sustain the shelter portfolio as directed by the City Council. We could not have achieved this without the support of so many essential external partners, including the State of California, the County of Santa Clara, the Housing Authority, the shelter operators themselves, VTA, and other private property owners. And I'm particularly grateful for the support that my office has received to ensure the success of the One Branham Lane shelter, especially from Director Sullivan and his team. So thank you for your dedication and your responsiveness to our community. I know that the administration is working diligently to improve the efficiency of the system, centralize operational functions and ensure consistent and coordinated support for our unhoused neighbors who are transitioning into the system. And with that, I will be supporting the staff recommendations. And at the same time, we must continue to be mindful of the significant ongoing operational exposure of the costs of the shelter portfolio as well as the risk of increasing general fund exposure. We just heard in the previous item references to our budget And the serious risks that have been identified, putting us at potential loss for revenue, whether it's the ERAF funding, the card room business tax revenue, all of that while we're contending with a projected $20 million deficit in the next year. And what we really heard today was regarding the real property transfer tax, the primary source of the local funding for the shelter operations, which we know is volatile. And if larger commercial properties aren't changing ownership, those revenues are lower. because Measure E revenue is already insufficient to pay for the interim shelter annual operating costs, the general fund will continue to subsidize our shelter operational costs, which means less general fund money for police, fire, libraries, and other core city services. So I encourage city administration to continue to critically examine the cost effectiveness of individual shelters, the Philippe and Mayberry shelters, for example, serve far fewer individuals compared to the Monterey and Bernal shelter in my district, but the annual operating costs are not much cheaper. So I have one quick question for staff. In the report, permanent housing destinations are defined as quote, transitions to stable living environments, including permanent housing and other traditional housing that leads to permanency. So can you please clarify if the, quote, exits to permanent housing metrics on table two in the staff report include transitions from these shelters into different interim housing sites.

Yes. So as listed in the table on slide four, it shows that for the safe parking sites, we've had a lot of turn that transition over into other interim housing sites similar to The motel programs, a lot of the motels that we lease, which are the first five that are listed at the top of the motel program sites, transition into interim housing. And then that turnover from interim housing into permanent placement, where we get a lot of turn, particularly as I would highlight again on this same table, Pacific Motor Inn, 100% of those individuals were transitioned to permanent housing. The arena, 100% of those individuals were transitioned to permanent housing as we began the specialized program with the housing authority. And then similarly situated at some of the other sites, particularly from the interim housing portfolio, as the majority of those go to either a PSH unit or to other permanent housing placement or to other family unification type permanent housing. So the portfolio, just given its different types of service levels and where they're at, has different transitions along the mark as part of the throughput model.

Thank you for that clarification, Eric. With that, I will move to approve the staff recommendations.

Thanks, Council Member. We'll go to Council Member Kameh.

Yes, I wanted to thank you and your department for all your work on this. I know that last year there were many sort of issues that were being addressed, and we're at a better place this time around. So I just simply wanted to show appreciation to you and your staff. simple thing sometimes things are very complicated so you know as we move towards continuous improvement I'm hoping that next year will be even better so just thank you and your staff thanks so much councilmember appreciate that with the motion a second I don't see any other hands Tony let's vote

Motion passes unanimously.

Great. Thank you. We are on to open forum, which is an opportunity for members of the public to comment on any items not on today's agenda, any city business not on today's agenda. Tony, do we have any open forum comments?

Jim Gray, come on down. And 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, well, this is open forum, 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 does it start? Where's the, where's, oh my gosh. Okay, my name is Jim Gray. I live on Akron Way. I came home recently and there was a 311 gentleman with his car and it's parked right behind a motorhome and by golly, they're finally gonna get that motorhome out of my face. And then I look around And he gets out of the car and he goes to a different car. And he gave a ticket to that car for parking two inches outside, away from the curb. The motorhome is in illegal parking. It's part of the emergency lane. So I only talked to them in February, so they have time to do it this year.

I'm sorry, that's your time. But you know how to email me.

Steven, maybe you can grab an email address. Are you working? Okay. All right. Sounds like your council office is on it. Okay. Did we have any other comments?

No. Back to council.

Okay. Well, thank you all. We're adjourned. Have a great evening.

Thank you.