San Jose City Council Meeting - June 10, 2025

The San Jose City Council met on June 10, 2025, in a day-long session that began at 11:00 AM and continued into the evening, covering a wide range of items including ceremonial proclamations, consent calendar approvals, a controversial pay-for-performance proposal, amendments to the municipal code, a code of conduct for encampments, the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 budget, and two land use general plan amendments. The meeting featured extensive public comment, with a five-hour public hearing on the previous evening. Key decisions included the adoption of a $55 million Measure E budget allocation, rejection of a pay-for-performance ordinance, approval of multiple code enforcement updates, and denial of two general plan amendments for residential development.

Consent Calendar

• The consent calendar was approved unanimously, except for item 2.26 (Option Agreement for Advanced Water Treatment Facility), which was pulled for a separate vote and also passed unanimously. Councilmember Mulcahy recused himself from item 2.22 (Willow Glen Community Benefit Improvement District) due to a conflict of interest.
• Items approved included: approval of minutes, final adoption of ordinances (including Entertainment Zones), lease amendments, legal services agreements, workforce program authorizations, disposal services, library parcel tax increase, fire department fee program, fire hazard severity zone map, mobilehome rent ordinance amendments, grant to Habitat for Humanity, joint use agreement with Archbishop Mitty High School, various Parks and Public Works contracts, and the Diridon Station At-Grade Station Alternative.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Consent Calendar (Item 2.26): A speaker expressed concerns about the Diridon station design and potential flooding, and another requested services for homeless individuals at Columbus Park and questioned abatement procedures.
• Municipal Code Amendments (3.11): Kira Kazantsev (Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits) supported a deferral for a detailed operational plan. A speaker described difficulties finding legal parking for her homeless brother's RV.
• Code of Conduct for Encampments (3.12): Multiple speakers opposed the policy, citing lack of implementation details and concerns about criminalizing homelessness. Speakers from the Real Coalition, Sacred Heart Community Service, and West Valley Community Services urged a services-only approach. The San Jose Chamber of Commerce and a resident supported the code, emphasizing accountability.
• Measure E Allocation (3.7) & Mayor's Budget Message (3.8): Numerous speakers supported the Campos/Salas/Duan memo to increase Measure E funds for prevention to 15%, invest in immigrant services ($1.5M), and fund an interpersonal violence prevention program. The San Jose Firefighters Union Local 230 supported Med 30 funding. Others opposed cuts to senior programs and urged protection of immigrant communities.
• Land Use Item 10.2 (3630 Kettmann Road): The applicant argued the project would provide needed housing on an infill site. Over 80 neighbors submitted a petition in opposition, citing flood risk, landslide hazards, traffic, and wildlife concerns. Supporters included a veteran and local contractors.
• Land Use Item 10.3 (826 North Winchester Boulevard): The applicant, VCI, proposed a 17-story twin-tower development with 135 units (14-20 affordable). The Corey Neighborhood Association and many residents opposed, citing inconsistency with the General Plan, liquefaction zone, scale incompatibility, traffic, and shadow impacts. Union carpenters and pro-housing groups supported the project for jobs and housing.

Discussion Items

• Pay for Performance (Item 3.10): Mayor Mahan and Vice Mayor Foley proposed an ordinance tying 5% of council salaries to achieving measurable performance metrics. Opponents (Councilmembers Kamei, Candelas, Salas, Doan, Ortiz, Cohen, Campos) argued it would undermine representative democracy, create perverse incentives, and that voters already judge performance at the ballot box. A substitute motion to reject the ordinance passed 7-4 (Mahan, Mulcahy, Casey, Foley dissenting).
• Amendments to San José Municipal Code (Item 3.11): The City Attorney presented eight ordinances to address quality-of-life issues: trespassing on private and city property, trash accumulation, 72-hour vehicle parking, illegal dumping vehicle seizure, copper wire theft, recreational vehicle rental for lodging, and vacant lot maintenance. Councilmember Campos raised concerns about enforcement equity and potential criminalization of presence. The council voted unanimously to approve the amendments.
• Code of Conduct for Encampments (Item 3.12): The policy updated the city's encampment management approach, adding a "responsibility to shelter" expectation, creating a Neighborhood Quality of Life Unit within the Police Department, and expanding outreach. Councilmembers Ortiz and Campos voted no, arguing it could lead to arrests for refusing shelter. The motion passed 9-2, with a friendly amendment to track implementation metrics.
• Measure E Allocation (Item 3.7): Council debated allocating the 5% Real Property Transfer Tax (Measure E) revenue between prevention services (currently 10%) and shelter/housing (90%). A motion by Campos, Salas, and Doan to increase prevention to 15% for two years failed 6-5. The council then adopted the staff recommendation (10% prevention, 90% for shelter and housing) on an 8-3 vote (Ortiz, Doan, Campos dissenting).
• Mayor's June Budget Message (Item 3.8): Vice Mayor Foley moved to approve the Mayor's budget message with modifications, including: $1 million for immigrant legal services (with potential for additional $500k at mid-year), funding for Med 30 (firefighter paramedic transport) for seven months starting December 2025, and deferral of other items. A substitute motion by Councilmember Doan to include additional funding for Med 30 and other items failed 5-6. The underlying motion passed unanimously.
• Operating Budget and Fees (Item 3.9): The council approved the FY 2025-2026 operating budget, biennial capital budget, and fees schedule. A memo regarding card room fees was modified: item 1 (fee reconciliation) to proceed, with items 2 and 3 deferred to August for further study. The motion passed unanimously.
• Land Use Item 10.2 (3630 Kettmann Road): Staff recommended denial of the General Plan amendment from Lower Hillside to Rural Residential for 13 single-family homes due to inconsistency with focused growth, VMT, hillside policies, and geological hazards. Councilmember Candelas moved to deny, citing landslide risk and community opposition. The motion passed 10-1 (Doan dissenting).
• Land Use Item 10.3 (826 North Winchester Boulevard): Staff recommended denial of the General Plan amendment from Neighborhood/Community Commercial to Transit Residential for a 17-story mixed-use tower. Councilmember Mulcahy moved to deny but recommended evaluating the site for future residential/mixed-use in the General Plan four-year review. The motion passed 10-0 (Candelas absent).

Key Outcomes

• Pay for Performance Rejected: The proposed ordinance to tie council salaries to performance metrics was defeated 7-4.
• Municipal Code Amendments Approved: Eight ordinances targeting trespassing, illegal dumping, copper wire theft, and vacant lot maintenance passed unanimously.
• Code of Conduct for Encampments Adopted: Updated policy with enhanced outreach and a Neighborhood Quality of Life Unit passed 9-2, with a directive to report on implementation metrics to the Public Safety, Finance, and Strategic Support Committee before the March 2026 budget message.
• Measure E Allocation Maintained at 90/10: The council voted 8-3 to keep the 10% for prevention and 90% for shelter and housing, rejecting a temporary increase to 15%.
• FY 2025-2026 Budget Adopted: The $55 million Measure E budget, Mayor's June Budget Message, and operating/capital budgets were approved unanimously, including $1 million for immigration legal services, seven-month funding for Med 30, and direction to study card room fees.
• Land Use Denials: Both General Plan amendment requests were denied (10-1 and 10-0), with direction to evaluate the Winchester site in the upcoming General Plan four-year review.