All right, good afternoon.

Welcome.

Welcome everyone.

I'd like to uh it's great to have a full chamber.

This is wonderful.

Welcome everyone.

I'd like to call order this meeting of the San Jose City Council for the afternoon of October 28th.

Tony, would you please call the roll?

Come here.

Campos.

Present.

Cohen?

Ortiz.

Here.

Here.

Juan?

Kendallis?

Here.

Casey.

Foley.

Mayhand.

Here.

You have a quorum.

Great.

Thank you.

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

I pledge allegiance to a five United States of America.

To the Republicans, for which it stands.

And the indivisible of liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

For today's invocation, Vice Mayor Foley will be recognizing the District 9 stars, a longtime tradition of hers.

Vice Mayor's coming up to the podium.

And I'm sorry, Vice Mayor, did you want me to join you or not?

Yeah, okay, I'm coming down too.

This is a little bit of a departure of an invocation, but I do this every year, and I'm I'm honored to do so.

When Vice Mayor Judy Cherco from District 9 was vice mayor, two council members before me, she created a D9's the D9 Stars, which is a way to celebrate neighbors, making positive difference in our community.

Now in my seventh year, I'm actually carrying that torch and tradition forward, and my team are always inspired by the nominations, the stories of kindness, generosity, and joy that emerge.

For today's invocation, I'm proud to introduce to you two of the three D9 stars.

Larry Albright.

Nominated by Tyler Cole, Larry Albright has served as pastor at Lincoln Glen Church for 48 years.

Yet his generosity and service extends far beyond his church duties.

He has fed the hungry, housed those in need, supported single parents, given free music lessons, and welcomed those without family into his home on the holidays.

Through countless acts of service, Larry has exemplified the profound impact one person can have, making each person he meets feel truly loved, valued, and cared for.

Today I present a commendation to Larry for nearly five decades of bringing the community together through his compassion and generosity.

We also put these chocolate.

Oh wow.

I'll share it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

By the way, we had 13 applications or 13 nominations, so it was really a difficult choice to select the three.

All were truly worthy.

Rachel Kumar, nominated by by Vicky Bose Mock.

Where's where are the nominees?

Or nominators?

They're up there.

Rachel Kumar from the Valley View Reed neighborhood stepped up to rebuild and maintain a food pantry for neighbors in need after noticing a void in the community.

Stocked by neighbors and emptied within hours, the upgrade upgraded pantry Rachel provides in front of her home provides consistent, stigma-free access to food and basic necessities for people like the local ice cream vendor who came by daily.

A mother whose paycheck wouldn't stretch far enough.

Children.

Her compassion shows how small acts of generosity can change lives.

Today I present a commendation to Rachel Kumar for her dedication to improving access for those facing food insecurity in our community.

Mayor.

And finally, one of our selected uh D nine stars was unable to attend.

That is Bobby ATAC, and she was nominated by Dave Noel and Captain Stephen Donahue.

Though our third D9 star couldn't make it, she should be recognized for her leadership of the Tatrick Community Association and chair of the District 9 leadership group.

Her dedication has strengthened neighborhood connections, inspired new community groups, and brought people together through community events.

We're deeply grateful for Bobby's heart of service and all she's done to foster welcoming vibrant neighborhoods in District 9.

To that, I present our D9 stars and to the nominators, thank you so much.

We're gonna do a little photo op right here, and then we'll move on.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

It's a wonderful tradition you've carried on.

We're on to our ceremonial items.

I'll invite Councilmember Ortiz to join me here at the podium, and we will recognize and proclaim Republic of China Day.

Welcome.

Hi, welcome, no more.

Welcome.

Welcome, please.

Please welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You're here.

Oh, we got a we got a long line there.

Sorry.

All right.

It's a full house today.

All right, I'm gonna go ahead and get started.

Hello, everybody.

Uh my name is Peter Ortiz, and I'm proud to serve as City Council Member for the diverse neighborhoods of East San Jose.

It's my honor to welcome the honorable deputy director general of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in San Francisco, Mr.

John Chu, and the delegation of very prominent Taiwanese community leaders and members, to mention a few.

There are Jenny Kuo, Director of Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in SF, Sophia Yashu Chuang, Director of the Cultural Center of Teco in Malpedis, Vivian Wang, President of the Distinguished Chinese Society, International Silicon Valley Chapter, Lemon Hu, Honorable Chairman of Global Monte JH Science and Technology Association, Mr.

David Lin, Chairman of the Sino-American Heritage Foundation.

I'm deeply sorry due to time constraints.

I can only mention a partial list.

But welcome to all.

And on this momentous occasion, let us honor this day with the strength and unity of the Taiwanese people, their resilience, democracy, and innovation, and look forward to the future of continued peace, prosperity, and friendship between our two countries.

And let us not forget the Taiwanese Americans and friends of Taiwan's significant contributions to our community through their dedication to education, business, culture, and public service, and enrichment of all of our community, including the diverse fabric of our great city.

It is my honor and privilege to invite the honorable Director General David David Chu to say a few words and receive following his speech the proclamation from the mayor.

I think uh there's a confusion about my name, which is very difficult to pronounce and I under totally understand that.

So um good afternoon, mayor and the uh council members.

Um dear friends, I'm uh I'm deeply honored and uh humble uh and humbly privileged uh to stand before you today at City Council as the uh as the city officially proclaims uh tw October twenty fifth as Republic of China Taiwan Day.

On behalf of the time of the people of Taiwan, I express our heartfelt gratitude for this meaningful recognition I'm sorry I'm sorry for that it's a little bit uh you know I'm so happy about this so uh I'm thinking about what to say next so um uh I we especially thank the city of San Jose a community known for its vibrant diversity and its innovative spirit for its longstanding support of Taiwan and our overseas compatriots Taiwanese Americans have long contributed to the cultural technological and economic vitality of San Jose and greater area this proclamation reaffirms the deep bonds of our people united by the shared values of liberty and democracy we look forward to continuing this uh uh our friendship and cooperation in the years ahead thank you once again for this great honor and for your warm uh hospitality thank you now the mayor will please present the proclamation to honorable director general David Ooh General thank you congratulations on our proclamation we're gonna take a picture of China we're gonna take a picture signed by every member of the council thank you very much thank you very much for uh to that bunch of people here thank you very much good to see you all thank you for being here appreciate it thank you so much so much for all your contributions to the community sure sure thank you for this uh celebration absolutely well thank you council members we're able to thank you all for being here thank you yeah thank you we're making progress it's a pleasure thank you thank you for being here congratulations thank you all very much now I'd like to invite council member campus to join me at the podium where we will recognize and proclaim domestic violence awareness month if we have any guests coming down please come on down now and we are um welcoming our community members who are receiving um the proclamation today to join me um down here.

Thank you.

I'm honored to proclaim October as domestic violence awareness month in the city of San Jose.

We proclaim this month to fill silence with understanding and meet isolation with community.

Before I served on City Council, I was a preschool teacher and a court appointed advocate for children in foster care.

I've sat beside children, trying to make sense of experiences and feelings they didn't have words for.

Domestic violence takes many forms physical, verbal, emotional, psychological, or financial.

Each causes harm, each leaves a mark.

And it impacts everyone in a family, including children.

Some children try to protect a younger sibling or a parent.

Sometimes it's not what a child sees, but what they feel.

The tension in the air or a silence that doesn't feel safe, they learn to listen for cues, no child should ever have to notice.

Others learn to stay invisible or keep the peace when they should be building pillow forts or trick-or-treating.

And these experiences can deprive them of their childhood, their sense of wonder, and their feelings of safety.

But those experiences don't have to be a life sentence.

With time, we can learn the difference between alertness and peace, between holding your breath and finally exhaling.

Domestic violence is about domination, taking away a person's sense of security and self.

And our work is to make safety something we build together, starting with your right to be safe now and not something that we wait for.

To the advocates, teachers, social workers, caregivers, relatives, and neighbors who listen who show up, thank you.

You help people remember they are not defined by what was done to them, but by the courage it took to survive and by who they are still becoming.

Thank you to the advocates.

Your work is critical in raising awareness and providing resources.

And to every survivor, what you went through was real, you deserve peace and to heal on your own timeline, and we stand with you and recommit to our shared responsibility of making San Jose a safe city for us all.

Good afternoon, everyone.

On behalf of Next Door Solutions, I would like to thank Council Member Campos for inviting us here today and highlighting the importance of standing together against domestic violence, an issue that affects not just individuals, but families, children, and entire communities.

Domestic violence is more than what happens behind closed doors.

It's a pattern of control and fear that ripples through generations.

When violence enters a home, it doesn't stop with the adults.

Children feel it too, even when they don't see it.

That pain that they carry forward creates a cycle that repeats itself.

But here's the hopeful part prevention works.

When we teach young people about respect, empathy, and healthy communication, we give them the tools to build something different and something better.

At Next Door Solutions, we believe prevention starts with awareness and education.

Through our intervention and prevention work, we continue to provide services to survivors and their children.

We have done a lot of prevention work in East San Jose and all throughout the county.

We support parents in recognizing the signs of trauma and provide resources for families healing through violence.

Our advocates work tirelessly every day to ensure that survivors and their children feel heard, feel seen, and supported.

So today, as we raise awareness, let's also raise hope and remind each survivor that they're not alone and remind every young person that they deserve to be safe, respected, and loved.

And let's remind ourselves that prevention starts with all of us in our homes, in our schools, and our communities.

Thank you.

Today I'm honored to recognize October 2025 as National Disability Employment Awareness Month, or NDM, with my colleagues, Council members Rosemary Kamei and George Casey.

NDEM is observed each October to raise awareness about disability employment and to celebrate the contributions of workers with disabilities.

This year marks the 80th anniversary with the theme celebrating value and talent, highlighting the skills, dedication, and achievements that people with disabilities bring to our workplaces.

This observation began in 1945 as a week-long observance with Congress and later expanded to a full month.

People with disabilities face environmental and attitudinal barriers such as stereotyping, discrimination, and ableism.

Yet they represent the largest minority group in the U.S.

at about 13 and a half percent of the population.

This diverse community spans every age, race, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic background.

Reminding us that every person, regardless of ability, adds unique perspective, creativity, and value.

Especially in today's divided climate, it's important to recognize our shared humanity and ensure each person is respected for their contribution and value for who they are.

I want to highlight the city's 17th Annual Disability Awareness Day, which will be Thursday, this Thursday, October 30th, from 10 to 1 at right at City Hall outside of the Rotunda.

This event continues to grow each year, and in recent years, we've placed a special focus on job and employment resources, reflecting the core mission of Endeme.

The event will feature an expanded job fair and free resume workshop covering both the basics and providing opportunities for individual resume critiques to help participants take the next steps in their career journeys.

While we've made meaningful progress toward inclusion, there's still more to do to ensure workplaces are welcoming, accessible, and empowering for all.

With a proclamation, the City of San Jose reaffirms its commitment to equal opportunity and celebrates the value and talent of every individual.

Today I'm in join by I'm joined by individuals from Options for All, a local organization dedicated to creating and supporting opportunities for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities through employment services, paid partner, paid internships, work experience, and business inclusion training.

This month, we honor Options for all and all organizations, employers, community members, and advocates who work tirelessly to create inclusive workplaces.

Please welcome Ronald Shoney, a client of Options for Employment Services, and a paid employee at Grocery Outlet to share a few words before Mayor Mayhan presents the proclamation.

Hi everyone, I am Ronald Shoney and I'm excited to be here today.

I am currently employed at Groshi Alet thanks to Options for All.

Working is important to me because it has helped me grow as a person and as a professional.

Through my jobs, I've learned how to communicate well with customers and co-workers, the duties of handling cash and even knowing the difference between real and counterfeit money.

Each experience has shown me responsibility, patience, and how to stay under pressure.

I know that these skills will continue to help me in any future career.

Work also helps me with independence and confidence.

Having a job has allowed me to become more independent with my finances and not rely on my parents as much.

It feels special to know that I can take care of myself and make my own decisions.

That independence motivates me to keep working hard and continue improving.

Most importantly, working gives me a sense of purpose.

I am always excited to show up every day and work with an amazing team while also making a positive impact on others.

It's not just about earning money, it's about learning, growing, and being part of something bigger than myself.

However, the money is pretty awesome too.

I'm truly grateful for the opportunities I've had and for the people who have helped me along the way.

Work has given me confidence and routine, and I truly believe that I can do well in anything I set my mind to.

Thank you for listening and have a great day.

Thank you.

Well done.

Thanks for sharing the story with us.

Thank you all for being here.

There you go.

I congratulate you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, thank you all.

We're on to orders of the day.

Is anyone on the council have any changes to the printed agenda?

And I did get a note from Councilmember Ortiz.

If I may just summarize it, I believe it was to hear items three point nine and four point one concurrently at four p.m.

though we would vote on them separately.

Correct.

Great.

Do you want to make that motion?

Yes, please.

I'd like to motion that item 3.9 and 4.1 be heard concurrently but voted on separately with a time certain of 4 p.m.

Great.

And we have a second.

Any other, I don't see any other hands.

Okay.

Did we have public comment on that?

We did not.

I assume not.

Okay, we'll vote.

Thank you.

Okay.

Are we still waiting on a vote?

Everyone check their screen.

Can you check your screens, please?

Yeah.

Thank you.

Looks like that was unanimous.

Okay.

Today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of Tone No, a respected educator, veteran, and community leader whose life was defined by service and dedication.

A first lieutenant in the Army of the Republic of Vietnam and later a guiding voice through his radio program, Mr.

No made lasting contributions to San Jose's Vietnamese American community and will be remembered for his integrity, compassion, and commitment to education and freedom.

Councilman Duan will tell us more.

Thank you, Mayor.

Today, I would like to take a moment to honor Mr.

Tongol, a respected community leader, educator, a proud veteran who dedicated his life to service both to his homeland and to the Vietnamese American community here in San Jose.

Mr.

Mole began began his career as a teacher, nurturing young minds and instill in them the value of integrity, knowledge, and compassion.

During the Vietnam War, he answered his country call and become a student officer of class 27 at Tude Reserve Officer School.

Later, serving honorably as a first lieutenant in the Army of the Republic of Vietnam.

After the fall of Saigon in 1975, Mr.

Gole was imprisoned for 10 long years in a communist re-education camp, enduring hardship and sacrifice with unwavering dignity.

Who carried the pain of loss yet continue to serve the community in freedom?

Here in Northern California, Mr.

Moe became one of the most dedicated leaders of the Tudok Officers Association and the Republic of Vietnam Armed Force Veteran of Northern California.

Where he served as a chief inspector from the early 2000 until today.

Ensuring that the organization remained strong, united, and true to its principle.

He also led the Kuang The Gui Radio program.

A beloved broadcast that air on AM 1120 every Saturday morning for more than two decades from two thousand three to two thousand twenty-four.

Through his voice, he shared the stories, the memory, and the moral value of those who want to serve, keeping alive the spirit of freedom and patriotism for younger generation.

In addition, Mr.

Gong, serve as the Secretary General of the Committee for the Vietnam U.S.

Soldier Monument, known as Thank You America.

Right here in San Jose, a historic landmark that stands as a symbol of gratitude, brotherhood, and share sacrifice between American soldier in the Vietnam era and the South Vietnamese soldiers.

Deep conviction and enduring service.

On the behalf of the San Jose City Council and our entire community, I extend my deepest condolence, condolence to his family, his friends, and all those whose lives he touched.

May we remember Mr.

Tong Long not only for what he endured for what he gave, a lifetime of dedication to education, freedom, and community.

May he rest in peace.

Councilmember, just wanted to make sure we don't have anyone else speaking.

Okay.

That concludes orders of the day.

So we are on to the thank you all.

Yes.

Did we have a member of the family speaking?

That's what I was wondering.

We would like to invite one of the family members to speak on his behalf.

Okay.

And yes, sorry, this is the adjournment, of course.

Thank you.

All right.

So we'll have one member of the family have an opportunity to say a few words and then we'll conclude the adjournment.

Thank you, Councilmember.

One member comes out of the maybe one speak.

Thank you.

I'm teaching.

It is the moment when people are preoccupied with compliments.

This is encouragement.

Proud.

It's been huge for the committee for our family.

Thank you all again.

Yes, thank you.

All of the council members of San Jose.

On behalf of my family, I'm so grateful.

The recognized from the city.

This means a lot to my dad.

I think he's very happy.

He's my investing in this way now.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We want to express our deepest condolences to the family for your loss.

Okay.

Thank you very much for having us today.

I am the head of the descendant of the Tsuruk officers of the Republic of Vietnam Armed Force Incorporation.

Today I would like to re represent the uh descendants.

Thank you very much for honoring our Mr.

Donggo.

He has been the Chief Inspector of our Tuluk officers of Republic of Vietnam Association for since the early two thousand until today.

Today we are very honored to be here, and we don't know what to say.

We thank you very much.

And he will always be in our hearts.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you all for being here for those beautiful words in honor of Mr.

No.

It's it's our we express our deepest sympathy to his his family, loved ones all gathered here, and uh appreciate his many contributions to our community.

Thank you all for being here to share his memory with us.

We appreciate it very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

We will uh move on now to our closed session report.

Nora, thank you, Mayor.

We do not have a report out of closed session today.

Okay, thank you, Nora.

Next is the consent calendar.

Are there any items council would like to pull from the consent calendar?

Not aware of any.

Okay.

If not, do we have a motion?

Great.

Motion from uh Councilman Compound, second from Cohen.

Do we have any public comment on the consent calendar?

We do.

Lillian, please make your way down to the podium, please.

Welcome, you're fine.

You can just come across here to the podium.

Once you begin, you'll have two minutes.

It looks like the mic's on.

Yeah, good good afternoon, um, city council.

I'm here today because you are appointing three distinct members from the community to the senior uh commission board.

Now I myself have applied for the senior commission in district three.

Yes, I was a day late in getting the application in, but it was rather extensive.

And um I have been going to the senior commission for the last year and a half before Gina Lopez uh left, her term expired.

Uh we had a subcommittee on housing, and I would like to continue on that subcommittee, and I would like to serve on the commission because housing is very, very important to seniors in our community, and I believe that that is of great importance, and I would like to serve on the commission.

I represent district three, but in reality, you can pick anybody from the community to serve on that commission.

I was told that it would not involve an extensive amount of review, and that you could be nominated or picked for that commission if you filled out the vacancy.

And of course, our board is has not met for four months because we haven't had a quorum.

So I am here today to appeal, especially to District 3 to review my application and uh appoint me on the senior commission.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

There are no additional speakers.

Okay, thank you.

We'll come back to the council.

I don't see any hands up.

Let's vote.

That motion passes uh without a vote from Councilmember Duan, but otherwise unanimously.

Okay, thank you.

We are on to item 3.1, report of the city manager.

Thank you, Mayor.

I do not have a report today.

Okay.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Let's go to item 3.3.

And this is the coordination of homelessness activities audit report.

See Joe and the team coming down, and uh we will let them get started as soon as they're ready.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, City Council.

I'm Joe Royce, City Auditor.

Uh I'm here with Katanjali Mandrakar, Michelle Millari, and Adrian Perez from our office to present our audit on homelessness homelessness coordination, expanding outreach, strengthening grant oversight, and aligning performance goals can improve the city's response.

Also in the box is Eric Sullivan from the Housing Department.

Homelessness continues to be a top concern for San Jose residents in the city's annual community opinion survey.

Respondents consistently have ranked addressing homelessness a top priority for making San Jose a better place to live.

Preliminary results from a 2025 point in time count placed San Jose's total homeless population at 6,503.

The housing department has noted that this is likely an undercount, and in February of this year estimated there were approximately 5,500 unsheltered individuals in San Jose on any given night.

The city and its regional partners such as Santa Clara County are challenged to fully address the homelessness crisis by limited resources across the housing continuum from outreach workers to interim housing to affordable housing opportunities.

In June 2024, the city council directed our office to conduct an audit related to the city's efforts around homelessness.

Specifically, the direction was to explore San Jose's internal department structure related to homelessness response, assess coordination of activities across the departments, the county and the city's service providers, and benchmark how other jurisdictions and municipalities are addressing homelessness.

Well, the housing department is the primary department responsible for responding to homelessness.

Many departments are involved directly or indirectly with the city's homelessness response.

This includes the departments of parks, recreation neighborhood services, transportation, public works, police, and others for fiscal year 25-26.

The city budgeted one over 150 million dollars for homelessness programs.

The city also maintains agreements with multiple regional partners to coordinate responses to homelessness, including Santa Clara County, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and others.

It should also be noted that Santa Clara County's Office of Supportive Housing is responsible for many prevention, temporary housing, and permanent housing solutions countywide and is the primary administrator of the countywide continuum of care.

The city's organizational structure around homelessness mirrors other jurisdictions with one central department or agency overseeing their homelessness response and coordinating with other departments or agencies as appropriate.

All of the jurisdictions we spoke with reported following the housing first model, with most making investments in shorter-term housing, like in transitional housing and state parking.

And while all jurisdictions had a continuum of care, the organizational varied.

Lastly, some jurisdictions have also been putting restrictions on camping in public and private spaces.

In the context of the coordination of activities around homelessness response in the city, we had two findings.

The first finding is that the city can improve interdepartmental coordination and communication.

Because of limited resources, as I noted earlier, the city prioritizes outreach in pre-selected areas through its targeted outreach and engagement program.

We also noted that other city staff routinely engage with unhoused residents through various city programs.

We found at the time of the audit, housing had limited outreach resources with just roughly 30 contracted and in-house outreach workers to connect San Jose's unsheltered residents with resources.

And as a result, unhoused residents outside of those areas have not been prioritized for interim housing or services, even when complying with the city's encampment policies.

Also, at the time of the audit, SJ 311 data was not used to inform housing's outreach strategy.

So we had a recommendation to develop protocols to provide timely outreach for areas impacted by abatements and tow away zones, as well as reevaluating outreach priorization.

Also in this finding, we noted that while other city staff are regularly engaged with unhoused residents, there is no clear guidance for referring or providing information or referring individuals to the housing department for resources.

We also noted that the city has not consistently responded to outreach requests from city staff or the public, and that the city can better communicate expectations regarding response to lived-in vehicles, including timelines for recovering personal belongings after tows.

So we had recommendations to develop guidelines around information provided to unhoused residents by non-housing staff, providing SJ 311 updates to residents even when a response is not possible, and improving communication around lived-in vehicles.

Our second finding is that improved monitoring and defined responsibilities can strengthen homelessness service delivery.

Based on a limited sample of homeless related service agreements, outside service providers did not meet some of their performance goals.

We found that housing can strengthen its grant oversight by developing clear protocols for site visits, desk reviews, and other activities.

Housing can also ensure consistent service provider performance evaluation by aligning individual agreement expectations with broader program goals.

And lastly, we noted that public works provided maintenance at interim housing and safe parking sites, some of which may have been the responsibility of site operators.

Overall, the report has nine recommendations to approve homelessness coordination and service delivery across the city.

We'd like to thank the housing department and all the city departments that we assisted in the audit.

I ask that you accept the report.

We're happy to answer questions, but first I'll turn it over to Eric Sullivan for the administration's response.

Thank you.

Thank you, Eric Sullivan, Director of Housing, and we appreciate the audit and the findings and the process throughout this review.

We have found and recognize in the administration's response and agreed to the majority of the recommendations.

And we think moving forward, this is going to improve our overall interdepartmental coordination for responding to homelessness in San Jose.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you, Joe to you and your team and Eric, you and yours for the response.

Let's go to public comment first.

We have eight speaker cards submitted, so I'll call the first four.

Please make your way down to the podium.

You don't have to speak in the order in which you're called.

Flori, Debbie, Andrew, and Azazel.

Good afternoon, mayor and city council.

Um my name is Andrew Sigler.

I'm a member of Surge Santa Clara County.

I live in District 3.

I ask that you accept the report as well as both the memos, but with amendments from recommendations that were posted in Michelle Mashburn's letter.

Well, I appreciate this as an important first step toward accountability for the city and its outreach and services.

It does not go far enough.

Michelle Mashburn wrote a letter that outlines additional actions that should be taken to center the intersectionality of disability and homelessness.

That said, if this is truly the first step toward uh accessibility and disability justice, uh it is a decent start, and so I commend you all.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, next speaker, please.

Hi, Mayor and Council.

My name is Lori Catcher.

I'm a 23-year resident of District 6, a member of Showing Up for Racial Justice, Santa Clara County, and a volunteer with neighborhood hands.

I also want to thank council members Campos, Foley, Kameh, Tordillos, and Mayor Mahan for your memo on this item.

I appreciate the memo as an important first step in a process towards accessibility and disability justice for our M House residents in San Jose.

The term reasonable accommodations recognizes that disability exists on a spectrum and therefore requires a dynamic approach.

As a mom of a neurodivergent young adult, I become highly aware of that as I as I have grown to learn so much from my own daughter.

The audit should have reviewed how accommodations are documented and how denials are justified.

The omission of these measures hides inequities rather than exposing them.

So an audit that fails to analyze disability access is incomplete.

So I would ask that you would please consult with stakeholders who are directly impacted and center their recommendations, especially in the intersectionality of marginalized communities such as those that are both unhoused and disabled.

I will say as well as Councilmember Ortiz's memo that came forward, and I would just ask that you would amend it to include uh recommendations from disability consultant Michelle Mashburn, whose letter um Andrew mentioned, and to build an analysis of disability access into any future audit that the city does.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker, please.

Well, good afternoon, City Council members.

My name is Hazel Holmquist.

I am on SERGE, and I am asking to just thank you for the memo and asking also to make it go much further.

Disabled disabled unhoused um residents have the potential to function 100% normally, I think.

And that I feel I feel that we need to um include disability accessibility.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And before the next speaker begins, I'd like to call another batch of people to come down and line up at the podium.

Deb St.

Julian, Kayla, Free, Kim, and Sean, and also Kay Hedges.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Debbie Ow, and I am a member of Showing Up for Racial Justice.

I am here about my concerns about the disabled and how they were treated during the clearing of the Columbus Park area.

Also, I did inquire about the 21 RVs, and I did get a response on that, and I do appreciate your follow-up.

I would like to see some kind of tracking to these individuals who were cleared and for all people who are accommodated in the temporary housing.

What happens to them after a year out?

Are they actually in housing?

Are they still in temporary housing?

Do they have jobs?

How is their health?

You know, this is a lot to track, but we want to make sure that these people are not just cycling through.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Brie Mendoza, and I'm the clinical supervising attorney at the Unhouse Advocacy Clinic at Santa Clara Law.

I speak in support of 3.3 on behalf of myself and based on my experience working with unhoused folks and being unhoused myself previously.

Thank you to the authors of this item.

Addressing these gaps reaffirms that dignity and due process belongs to all.

I encourage the council to continue to see this as the beginning of something powerful and not the finish line.

The memo shows meaningful progress, and sustaining that means addressing the realities that residents face.

I also invite the council to widen the lens on RV community members who are seeking safe parking.

Many of them do not identify as unhoused, but as unparked.

They have built stable and self-sufficient homes where families gather, neighbors care for one another, and people contribute to the city.

They are not seeking to avoid shelter because they have shelter.

It is to preserve the stability that they've worked so hard to create.

Recognizing that home looks different for different people is the foundation of sound policy.

When systems meet people where they are, trust and lasting solutions follow.

During the Columbus Park sweep, I saw how policies on paper can collapse in practice.

I saw how residents watch the few possessions they still have that give them identity thrown into trash compactors.

I know that this is not the city leadership's intent, and I sincerely thank you for your commitment to change.

Thank you for centering and collaborating with voices with lived experience, and I support 3.3 with the addition of Michelle Mashburn's recommendations.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker, please.

Hi, Mayor and Council members.

I'm Catherine Hedges.

I'm here with uh Surge, and I agree with the last two speakers.

We not only need to incorporate Michelle Mashburn's disability recommendations, we need to have long-term accountability instead of just counting up how many people we got you know under a roof or whatever we're calling it this week, as uh Pierre Tees mentioned in his memo.

We don't seem to have accountability for our outreach.

They're just trying to make their numbers, they're not actually following up on people, and this we're just throwing money at a problem to say we're throwing money at it and we're not actually having an effect, so we need to spend actual effort tracking results, tracking who's in housing.

I agree with the previous speaker that you know being unparked is different than just being unhoused, and we're not making allowances for that.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And before the next speaker begins, I'll just reiterate the remaining four names.

Deb, Kim, Sean, and Kayla.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

I'm Deb St.

Julian.

I'm a member of Surge Santa Clara County and a D2 resident, and I'm also a person of faith.

And I'm speaking in support of the Ortiz memo and the Mayhan Foley Kameh Campos Tordill memo with what everyone else said, some additions.

We're thankful that you're looking at this accountability, and we do want to know what happens when people supposedly get housed and what the outcomes are.

Um I like data, and I like data.

Uh, but I know that the data you choose to look at decides where you're going to focus your efforts and outcome.

So we need data about disability access, and we need data about outcomes.

Um I support that.

And I also want to just say it's nice in this day and age that we can be in a chamber where we probably don't all agree, but we can speak.

I feel that's great.

So, yay, San Jose.

Thank you, next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, council members as well as mayor.

My name's Kayla.

I'm from District 5, and I am part of Surge Santa Clara County, as well as I am a caregiver of individuals with disabilities.

I support the Mahan Foley et al.

memo and the RT's memo for item 3.3, but with a request for it to be amended to include recommendations from disability justice advocates.

I think it's critical to hear from the needs of disabled and unhoused stakeholders.

I strongly encourage the memo to be amended to build analysis of disability access into future audits.

Further, the audit should have been reviewed on how accommodations are documented and how denials are justified.

I believe the city cannot coordinate a fair response to homelessness while disregarding the very population most likely to be harmed by its actions.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Kim Gaptel.

I live in District 6, have for 34 years.

I'm a member of Surge Santa Clara County and a volunteer responder with the Rapid Response Network, both for the last eight years plus.

A couple of points.

And going forward informed by and center the needs of disabled and unhoused residents, including immigrants.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Um I am disabled.

Um I'm been disabled most of my life, and it's important to me when I go out there to work on reasonable accommodation requests because these are people from my world.

I was out there, I submitted reasonable accommodation requests along the trail.

I did them for Autumn Parkway, then I did them for the trail, uh, then I did them for End of the World, and I started doing them at Columbus.

Um, and almost every single one was either rejected, or there was a whole batch of them that they said we didn't even read them too late.

Sorry.

They didn't even look at them.

So there's a whole batch of them that we did and that other people did from uh that we did as reasonable accommodation requests because it was so important to do them, and we know that there's a different interaction between advocates and between the city.

So it was extremely frustrating to have that done to us, and for the people not even to have their needs, their reasonable accommodation, their access considered by the city that the city just was like, we're not even gonna read those.

Just completely dismissed, and these reasonable accommodation requests were not included in the audit because they were not done by the city.

So I'd like to see somehow those included and looked at as well.

Um, and some of these people, there were people with cancer, heart conditions, uh, people who had, you know, wheelchairs, walkers, things like that.

And during the sweep, one man who relied on his walker had his walker swept from him.

So it's just been ridiculous to see this happen.

I support all the memos.

I totally support my homie in arms, Michelle Mashburn's uh suggestions, and it's just you should be out there to see when we're doing these reasonable accommodations, what people ask for, and when they're denied.

There was one person who got a reasonable accommodation.

She was left for three weeks at Roosevelt Park, the only person out there for three weeks in the rain.

That's the only one thank you.

That was our final comment back to council.

Thank you.

Thank you to our public speakers.

Appreciate you taking the time to be here.

Thank you, Councilmember Duan for authoring the memo that initiated this audit last year, and thank you to uh Joe Royce, our city auditor, and your team, including Gitanjali, Michelle, Adrian, and Donovan for conducting a thorough review of how we coordinate homelessness services.

Given our significant investment in homelessness response from outreach to EIH operations, uh I agree, I think we all agree it's critically important that we are tracking performance and holding ourselves and our partners accountable for maximizing the impact we have with every dollar we spend.

Our housing department, as you all know, oversees dozens of contracts with service providers who deliver critical services, and we need to ensure that we are consistently monitoring outcomes, not just outputs, and that we have the right systems in place to know what's working, what isn't, and how we can continue to improve over time.

Data uh driven management, and of course, that starts with good data uh collection, reporting, and transparency are essential to building public trust and uh making sure that we're making real progress with our limited resources, and uh and it's it's daunting.

We have scaled up this system quickly, it's complicated.

We're serving a very high need population.

There's a lot of complexity out in the real world on the ground level where our frontline staff are operating.

Um, so I do want to keep that in perspective that we will uh we have to hold ourselves accountable with building out best in class uh data collection and and monitoring analysis and building that feedback loop, that learning cycle we've talked a lot about, and clearly from this audit, we've got uh some work ahead of us, some tangible, very concrete things we can be doing.

So I do want to appreciate the housing department's commitment to implementing the audit recommendations, especially standardizing reporting, improving data systems, and setting clear, measurable goals for our providers, something we've been talking about quite a bit recently.

Um, ultimately, I think we it's incumbent upon us to ensure that every contract we fund is producing real measurable results and that we are continuously improving on what the based on what the data tells us.

I also want to thank my colleagues for their thoughtful memos, just a couple of comments on those.

Councilman Compost, thank you for leading our group memo related to reasonable accommodations and the handling of personal belongings.

Uh, compared to other cities, we are likely in many ways a model for providing advanced notice.

Um, but I I certainly recognize there's always room for improvement and fully support uh reviewing existing procedures and training materials and ensuring that reasonable accommodations are being provided wherever appropriate, and that we have really clear guidance for everyone.

The public we're serving, our own our own workforce, our contractors.

Um, also appreciate council member Ortiz's memo and the um concerns raised about accountability and the request for outcomes and metrics.

I share that desire, which is why over the last uh two years I've co-authored a number of memos outlining very specific metrics we should be tracking uh related to outreach and EIH operations as we've approved contracts and in addition, we've had some specific direction provided through my budget messages.

Eric, could could you just give us a quick update on how you're responding to all of the previous direction over the last two years this council has given?

I understand you haven't even been here for a full two years, but um the outreach, I'm sorry, the direction we've given around outreach and EIH operations and how we do uh performance management.

Yes, so thank you, Mayor.

So I'll provide kind of a quick summary and then drill down into three different pieces on how we're implementing the prior council directions.

So first, going back to the initial set of criteria set up for outreach uh contacts as well as data tracking.

So we have begun implementing that work as we have shifted recently from primarily contracted outreach to more in-house outreach.

That data that was being collected by our third-party contractor outreach into HMIS system, needed to be continuously improved.

And so we've begun doing that, and part of the shift to providing more in-house outreach contacts is to improve the data inputs.

So that way when we're analyzing the data, there's a better sense of what the data is informing us.

And so that's some of the response to the initial set of direction given regarding outreach workers.

Then there was the June 2024 memo, which provided direction to collect more data on the performance of the EIH system, and within that, two or three other components related to outreach tracking.

We have begun installing all of those metrics into our contracts as the contracts have rolled up.

As you mentioned, Mayor, we've built a system very fast.

We've opened eight sites in the last 10 months.

So we've had to do a lot of sort of building the plane while it's moving forward.

And so as we've implemented those changes into the contracting system, we're now building the back end systems in order to capture that data more automatically rather than the manual connection that it is today, which is receiving it through email and not through a system.

So it makes it very difficult to collect a lot of that system and data.

And then thirdly, as we're looking at tracking of outcomes, we're beginning to put together, as we just released a couple of months ago, our first dashboards that are tracking the first phase of how vacancies are tracked throughout the entire system.

The next phase of that dashboard is going to be looking at performance consistent with uh what council member Ortiz's memo is articulating of each of the service providers and how we're constantly building this out as we're building this entire system as we also add new beds over the last few years.

And so each of these components are moving forward as we look to ensure that we're able to provide a comprehensive data collection with good inputs on the data side, then analysis of that data that is collected and then publicly publishing that data as we've done with the EIH dashboard.

So we're moving this forward, and as we've gone through the referral cleanups and are able to compress some of the more uh sort of outstanding requests that came from council down to more focused set that are getting to true outcomes that we want to track, we're able to make progress in this area.

Great.

I appreciate all that, and especially your last point.

If we've given too much or too sprawling or conflicting direction over the years, certainly always uh you know, encourage our city manager and everyone here to come back to us and help us help you if we've if we've made it too complicated.

But I appreciate the progress.

I will just note concretely two examples where I I've been uh seeing notable progress.

One is the item coming next week on outreach now incorporates a number of new outcome measures that we had previously directed related to what's happening when an outreach worker is contacting an individual person who's experiencing homelessness.

It's still not a hundred percent of what we wanted, and I understand it's still a work in progress, but it is substantially uh closer to what we've been envisioning.

And then I also have been very impressed with the interim housing portfolio utilization dashboard and the ability to drill down in basically near real time and understand which beds are being used and how quickly we're turning them around and an important part of utilization.

And I'll just share for members of the public for colleagues.

I this is a this this work has always been important, but all the more so is we are now transitioning from a process of system expansion, which was the last few years, and starting to transition into system optimization.

We've added, we will have added by the time we're done over 2,000 beds.

We're not gonna add 2,000 beds in the next three years.

We're gonna figure out how to get the most impact out of the 2,000 we just added over the last few years.

And so we this is a critical moment for us to get these systems in place.

And then finally, and then I'll turn to colleagues.

I was a little concerned that the departmental response to recommendation eight related to aligning performance targets isn't expected to be complete for another year, at least that's how I read it.

And I'm just curious what we can do to help staff accelerate that work, or if if there are just certain elements of building out the system that inevitably will take that long.

But I think we're all eager to see this work move as fast as possible.

Yes, just a response to that briefly.

So part of what is incorporated into this time frame of out uh to January 30th of 2026 is an acknowledgement that as we're shifting, as I mentioned prior, from manual data collection to more automated data collection, that takes some time to do that, and two as we're reorienting the structure within the department to address what other different roles we need to have our FTEs in place to gather this connection, do focus more on that analysis, build that analysis into our overall program metrics and performance.

That's also a management shift.

And that management shift is just gonna take some time as well.

So there's two parts to this uh execution that we're looking at, and that's why we gave ourselves just a bit more time as we're making that shift, as you had mentioned from building out a system to which we've got two more sites to complete this year to shifting to let's manage it, let's make it efficient, and it's a management shift to ensure that our FGEs are now focused on that data collection and analysis.

So it's just gonna take a little bit more time to implement that.

Okay.

Sounds good.

Thanks for that, Eric.

Alright, let me turn to colleagues starting with Councilmember Ortiz.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, first, I just want to thank the city auditor's office for their detailed and candid work on this report.

And like always, you always do a great job, so just want to elevate that.

I also want to thank Eric, Eric Sullivan, and the housing department for their thoughtful response and working closely with my staff uh on my memo.

I think this audit underscores something we all recognize in the community, which is our unhoused responses, one of the most complex uh and critical challenges that is facing uh our our city, as noted by the comments from our mayor.

The audit found that while we've made progress in shelter production and coordination, we still face gaps in communication and accountability with our service providers.

We're spending roughly 75 million dollars a year on contracts with providers who serve our unhoused residents as well as our residents throughout our city.

That's a tremendous investment, and it's our responsibility to ensure every dollar of that investment is being used effectively and efficiently because it is the people's dollars.

And that's why uh my memo calls for the city manager and the housing department to go a step further to develop a clear measurable metric that evaluates outcomes such as shelter placements, housing retention, and successful transitions out of homelessness.

This builds direct this builds directly on the audit's recommendations to strengthen oversight and ensure that funding decisions are guided by real data-driven results.

By tying funding to proven results, we can ensure our limited resources go where they make the greatest impact.

Our residents deserve to know that every contract and every dollar brings us closer to our goals of housing or rehousing more residents and restoring dignity to our unhoused community.

And so I look forward to seeing the proposed framework return to the council by April 2026 so that together we can make San Jose's unhoused response more effective, more equitable, and accountable to the public that we we serve.

I also want to thank um Councilmember Campos, uh, the mayor, uh, the vice mayor and council members Kamei uh uh and Tordillos for their memo, and I'd like to both move both my memo uh and their memo together.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Let's go to Councilmember Campos.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, and I also want to thank the city auditor and his team for identifying opportunities to clarify outreach procedures, strengthen oversight of contracted service providers, and meet the city's performance goals related to reducing homelessness in our community.

I also appreciate the city administration's response and all of the work that each city department has done in this council focus area.

I want to thank my um colleagues uh in our brown acts group for your collaboration and for working with my team to learn about the city's protocols regarding reasonable accommodations and the retrieval of personal belongings that were collected during abatements.

I am truly grateful for the support of city staff in particular, Gabriel Rodriguez and the city attorney's office, Eric Sullivan and Cupid Alexander in the housing department, and Paul Pereira and Olympia Williams in PRNS who helped explain the city's approach and provided valuable and timely information to us.

Thank you for your patience and for your willingness to work with us.

Our joint memo accepts the city auditors' report and directs the administration and the city attorney's office to review the protocols for reasonable accommodations and for the treatment of personal belongings.

In collaboration with the Office of Racial and Social Equity, the city administration will determine if enhanced training or training for additional city staff or contracted service providers is necessary to ensure that people experiencing uh homelessness with disabilities are granted the reasonable accommodations that they need.

And I would also um like to make sure our community knows that the Office of Racial and Social Equity has a disability affairs officer, Sheila Sanchez, who will be working to help um inform uh this future work.

The training also may reduce barriers or gaps in communication that make it harder for unhoused people to reclaim their belongings.

And I thank you, Councilmember Ortiz for moving this uh memo, uh, our memo in addition to your memo.

So thank you.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Turn to Councilmember Mulcay.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, first I want to thank the city auditor um for the depth and thoughtfulness of the audit.

Um, it was a wide-ranging review that shed real light, addressed some previous assumptions and a laid some fears on how we strengthen coordination across city departments and with our third party providers.

Um, this is challenging work for all involved, and I appreciate the opportunity the city is taking to reflect on ways to improve services for our most vulnerable residents.

I want to express support for the memos.

I will be supporting um this motion on the floor, but I want to specifically talk about Ortiz's memo, especially its alignment with recommendation six, which sets measurable goals with holding providers accountable in a fair and constructive way.

I deeply value the immense effort it takes to provide these services and at the same time having clear, tangible metrics ensures that unhoused residents receive the care they deserve, and that service providers know exactly what is expected of them.

Now there's a ton of storytelling that happens in this work, which makes the work around accountability and responsibility even more important, getting to the real truths about what is happening on the ground.

I'm hopeful these metrics and the performance framework will help the city better understand what's working and what's not, allowing us to be more strategic with our limited resources and to provide transparent, meaningful data for our residents.

Now, as mentioned, I'll support the motion, but I just wanted to ask a couple of questions.

Um given that we've got prioritized outreach through the targeted outreach and engagement program zones.

Do what do we know about the uncovered areas?

Do we have like a heat map that is sort of showing us where our gaps are?

And maybe ask Eric.

Maybe that's the right place to go.

Yes, thank you, Councilmember.

So, yes, we do have through various departments.

Uh, working with my colleagues in DOT and PNRS, a sense of where the other encampments are.

They're always going to be encampment abatements that are going to occur without necessary outreach.

We're working through that alignment process.

And there's also uh a continuing work that DOT does to clear out lived-in vehicles that may not necessarily have an attachment to outreach process.

We're working through those mechanics as well.

The sheer number of unhoused individuals who are also unsheltered or living in vehicles far exceeds our abilities to make contacts with the hundred percent of people.

And so we are doing a targeted approach, aligning our work across the operations to ensure we can have the biggest of impact.

You saw a lot of that occur with the alignment at Columbus Park.

We were able to offer over 200 individuals, bringing indoors, over 70 individuals were filed for ADA accommodations and they were reviewed by the accommodations officer in the city.

We had an entire process across multiple departments.

And so there's a lot of opportunity where we find that as abatements are ongoing, as lived-in vehicles are being cleared through the ONLIF program.

Our points of contact for outreach sometimes have to be more targeted because there are just limited resources, and we want to make sure that that point of outreach and engagement can result in providing a bed within the shelter system and then throughput into more permanent housing.

So let's talk about 311 for a moment.

Maybe it would be appropriate for you to talk about where you want to go with this, but you know, we're all referring community members to make sure to report on 311.

How are we triaging these reports coming in sort of across departments, right?

Because this touches so many different departments.

What are you hoping that we can do to be more effective and efficient in that area on 311?

Yeah, thank you, Councilmember, for the question.

So now, as we've looked at and what is captured and memorialized in the audit report and then the response to the recommendation, we acknowledge that through the 311 process, we get a lot of tickets being generated of requests by citizens to address and respond to some of our unsheltered individuals and neighbors throughout the city.

The challenge is a lot of that information that comes through is not necessarily actionable.

And so, in order to dedicate a resource response to the thousands of uh ticket requests that come to 311, the information that's collected has to be in a form that is actionable, that can be timely actionable.

And in addition to that, uh a lot of even when we do respond, unless we're able to align that response to connections within the shelter system or to a comprehensive set of services or the Here for You hotline or other valuable resources beyond just a communication with the individual or individuals who are at the particular location.

That is part of why, and as identified sort of in the audit and our response to it, we think about the 3-1 system as a good way to collect data and to inform, and we'll look to improve how we're targeting our outreach, but in terms of a direct response to every request that comes into 3-1-1, we certainly need to improve upon our communications to better manage expectations with the public, but an expectation that we're going to respond to every ticket, knowing the information received is not necessarily actionable, and we don't have a valuable response to that.

We're trying to manage the resources that we have through a more targeted engagement approach.

So, now I'm not necessarily picking on our homelessness response partners because I have some of the same questions around uh contracts, contracted out work that we're doing around DOT, right?

Median weed abatement, you know, has been a challenge, right?

We're sort of third-partying these out, and management of those third parties is critically important to make sure we're getting value for those contracts in the first place.

What are we doing through our oversight, you know, of let's say an EIH management program?

What is our team doing?

Are we doing, you know, site visits, desk visits, interviews with uh clients at these facilities?

Can you talk about that for a moment?

Yes, so we have begun as part of response to the initial state audit that had similar findings.

We began instituting desk audits with some of our partners, as well as clarifying some of the contractual provisions and ensuring that there is equal communication going from both sides from the housing department and to our providers.

Uh, in addition, we are also looking to expand, and this audit captures and the memorandums that were offered on it further expand sort of that authority and the charge to ensure that as we're working with our supportive service providers, we're taking a balanced approach of this is a service to which we need to get to an efficiency of response and data collection and quality of data collection.

I emphasize quality because we get a lot of data submitted, but it's not necessary quality or accurate or timely.

And so that's another big issue that we're working through to ensure that we're able to be in a position to say this contract for this amount results in these outcomes that further the entire shelter system and in our outreach engagement component as we're shifting from primarily focused outreach, that is, you know, bringing individuals into beds for an ever-growing system.

Now it's going to be much more targeted, uh, much sort of more focused on how do we getting turnover within that system, and then how we're responding to community needs more broadly.

And how does that how do we shape that in a way that still remains targeted and best applies limited public resources?

Thank you for that.

Hey, I just want to end on a note around, I want to draw to my draw to my colleagues' attention the memorandum that you put together dated October 27th, the Columbus Part Activation Operations Summary.

I just want to make sure everybody gets a chance to take a look at that.

It's probably a five-page breakdown of a whole array of activity, talking about the interdepartmental cooperation, talking about some you know, sort of resulting data from the work that was done at Columbus Park.

I think it does call to attention some of the recommendations in the auditors' work that really um, you know, kind of helps digest what happened there, and um I just want to make sure everybody get it gets a chance to read it and thank you for the report.

I think it's incredibly valuable and informative.

Yes, thank you, Councilmember.

And I just want to thank just all of my department directors, John Cisorelli, John Risto, Matt Lesh, uh Chief Paul Joseph, for all just all the collaboration that it took to get to the work in the clearing of Collabus Park.

It was truly the environmental work uh led by we've Wilcox and our Thursday lunch meetings to ensure we're able to address problems, resolve them, fix them, and kind of move forward.

Thank you.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Appreciate those questions.

Let me turn now to Councilmember Duan.

Thank you, mayor, and colleagues.

As a author of the original memo that led to this audit, I want to explain why it was necessary.

The recent state audit revealed nearly 300 million dollars in homeless spending was unaccounted for in City of San Jose, which raised a very serious concern for about oversight and fiscal management.

Some said yeah, we spend every dime of it, but there's there's no process, there's no line item to what, where, when, and how residents deserve to know where every single dollar of their tax money is going, especially when the result on the ground remains very limited.

The state audit provide only a broad snapshot, the city's specific audit let us dig deep into our program, contract, and internal structure to ensure funds are used properly and in line with legal and policy obligation.

The finding confirm what resin have seen for years, right?

Unshelter residents and encampment remains outreach focus on the number of encounters made with our homeless person rather than measurable success, like helping them accountability with nonprofit provider was minimal and inefficient and insufficient.

The audits is about holding the system accountable and making sure that San Jose doing everything possible to achieve the real results.

We need stronger grant oversight, requiring corrective action plan for underperforming providers, align all performance goal with outcome base metrics, and mandating individualized housing plans that help people move towards permanent housing.

I do have a few questions.

The audit found that housing department approximately 30 outreach worker handling approximately 6500 unsheltered residents.

That's equate to about 216 clients per worker far exceed what the National Alliance to End Homelessness Recommendation ratio, I believe, is one worker per 10 to 14 unsheltered residents.

So what is the department doing to close this gap at least a little bit closer?

So thank you, Councilmember, for the question.

You know, in thinking about how do we close the gap, part of it is recognizing that the amount of resources needed to close that gap are far exceed uh what the city can provide.

And so the department takes a more targeted approach to look at areas of alignment with other department activities throughout the city to ensure that we are having the most impact in achieving the highest outcomes we can get with the limited dollars that we are investing in this work.

And so part of what was also found in the state audit, as you mentioned, was similar findings of how do we ensure we're investing these dollars.

You know, we did provide a written response that that clarified there was no missing money, all the money was accounted for, it's just was scattered throughout different programs, and so we wanted to make sure we're consolidating those programs, and the next advancement of this work as identified here in the city audit is how do we now ensure that we're getting the most targeted efforts of those expenditure of funds to get to the most outcomes?

And I think that's probably the best approach, and Joe can add some more.

Yeah, so thanks, Eric.

So I I wanted to address that.

Also, some previous conversations around kind of outreach.

I know Councilmember Mulcay had a question about kind of where they were they focused.

We write and we recognize in the audit there are, as you said, limited outreach workers, and in any sort of resource-constrained environment, we're gonna have to be able to, we need to prioritize.

Uh, and the the first recommendation we have is really how do we ensure that folks there's coordination between uh PRNS and housing such that outreach can occur when possible before abatements or or uh would be with uh DOT for like any sort of all of activations, uh, also using that 311 data as Eric said spoke to earlier.

How do we use that data gather that data to inform future priorization?

So I just want to kind of go back to that center of that recommendation in any, and I'll just say in any resource constrained environment, we're gonna have to figure out how to prioritize our recommendation.

That first recommendation is really in the spirit of how can we use the information we're gathering and coordinating with PRNS to help prioritize in the future to use those 30 plus uh individuals uh most effectively.

Thank you.

And how how can a county help with this particular lack of resources, or should they in that for that matter?

So thank you for the question, council member.

I think as we look at ways in which we've recently solidified ways better opportunities to coordinate with the county uh in our response to the homelessness crisis in the city uh by better expanding and syncing up our shelter system, having more direct services from the county, that collaboration and leveraging of resources is going to allow for improved uh targeting of those resources, which will then eventually lead to you know better outcomes as well as more production.

You know, the more coordination and opportunities we have with the county as we're moralized recently uh through the mayor's work with the supervisor Betty Young.

Uh, part of that is going to advance our overall collaboration, which is going to help produce more resources for more targeted engagement.

Thank you.

It's noted that the outreach is heavily concentrated in the designated TOEP.

Right, but it leave a gap for individual outside of that zone, including vehicles and RVs.

So is our reactive outreach team model sufficient, or should we pivot to more of a proactive coverage citywide rather than just the only the prioritized zones?

So I'll take your question in kind of two parts.

So first, we have and are staffing up now the enhanced engagement team, which is going to do more of the reactive, more of the future planning, uh more abatements pop up, doing that enhanced engagements.

We'll be implementing that as we're going through the hiring process now and working with our partners in PRS to fully compise that team and that we implemented later on this calendar year.

Uh two, to the question of a shift in strategy and policy and approach to outreach.

I defer that back to council uh as to how we want to do it.

We want to staff up, we'll implement accordingly to address a more citywide approach.

Um, the approach that the department and the administration has taken with our current set of resources is to be more targeted, to be more aligned to other existing operations that are occurring where we can.

There's still some resource challenges there as well.

And then three, to look for better ways in which to track that progress and understand where the data is coming from and how it's being imported and what it says to better inform the future targeting of those efforts.

Thank you.

And then on page uh page 24.

It's complaints from the community is one of the criteria for TOEP site selection.

However, during this audit, the the 3.1 that Sounds a 311 system data was not being used to inform its outreach strategy.

How is the department to procuring the community complaints data in order to you know implement toward the future?

Yes, thank you, Councilman, for the question.

So we are going to be better accessing that data pool.

Again, as I mentioned, it has uh you know thousands of tickets in it.

That is not necessary information that is actionable.

So we have to sort through that, and we're working with ITD to figure out how best to through our data management team, Jerry Rutner, who runs that in the housing department, uh, how best to sort through that data to get an understanding of what is relevant information, how do we take that relevant information and form that into our targeting analysis of where engagement needs to be, and then three, how are we acting on that information so that we were able to best inform how we're putting together and strategizing both our enhanced engagement teams, our regular sort of engagement teams that we have that support our work around EIHs, and then thirdly, how we're having that cross-departmental communications with PRNS and DOT regarding abatements of Lidn Vehicles and Canvas.

Uh, thank you.

I just want to take a little bit of time and thank you to council member or former Council Member Bajan Batra, who signed on to my original memo, and I will be supporting the motion uh from Councilmember Ortiz, which I second it and include my colleagues from Mayor Mahan, Councilmember Foley, Kamei, Campus, and uh Todios.

Thank you.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Let me turn now to Councilmember Cohen.

Yeah, thank you.

Um, it does feel a little bit like um deja vu by because these conversations are sort of repeating themselves over and over again.

But I appreciate certainly the audit.

I think it it helps to put a lot of these things all in one place, um, to capture uh on paper many of the concerns that that the public has and that we have as council offices about what we're doing in the city, and frankly, the the clearly the concerns of those who are presumably being served by uh the programs that we put in place.

And I want to thank my colleagues for their memos, which are important additions to the recommendation.

Um I want to start, Eric, by following up on the SJ 311 conversation you were just having about the way you collect data.

I can you just clarify for me a little bit.

You were talking about using the data and kind of in in kind of aggregate.

I think what I heard you say earlier was we can't you we can't reply to every or respond to every 311 request, but you're being we're being informed by the collection of requests.

So am I to understand that what you're saying is if there are in one location a large number of requests coming in that informs where response should occur.

What we're gonna look to do with you know the thousand of tickets that come in is that though they're individually may not be actionable in the aggregate collected together, may I point to an issue that we maybe have not seen.

It could be an encampment that wasn't uh gone on noticed, could be a group of lived-in vehicles that maybe again has not been noticed.

And so how we are able to use the sort of power of all the tickets at once that may not individually be actionable, but collectively may tell a particular story that we need to respond to, that's how we're looking to assess the data.

We don't have that tool right now to do that, so we're building that tool out so we can utilize the data we're getting from 311 to inform how we best address and implement targeted outreach.

Okay, and I, you know, I you you mentioned areas that are might not have been noticed.

I will just I you know I'll just suggest that you know, I know that those of us in council offices notice them, those of we we hear about them from the public.

I think that we we try to tell people is please submit it through 311.

My hope is that that is becoming useful in the sense that the more requests there are from one location, the more likely a response would be in that location.

Um, because I think this is the biggest frustration people have is they feel that they're they're submitting requests, they're not getting proper information.

I do think maybe anyway, go ahead and and uh respond to that part.

I just wanted to say, I think what Eric's trying to say is we we have a lot of work to do, especially as we come out of you know what the mayor said kind of capacity and growing over the last three years to optimization of now really fine-tuning those services and aligning it with what the servers delivery or the messages is messages are within 311.

So that is a bulk of work that really needs to happen.

So we're setting residents' expectations up front on what the reporting tool will do, how we intend to use it, and what a resolution is.

That's gonna be very important for us in the next year.

With that said, that data coming in now does inform an awful lot of work in the way that Eric and PRNS may want to distribute outreach workers, or quite frankly, we have, you know, a vast plan within the city, um, and areas that you guys have identified and no encampment returns.

So, like the ability to use that tool and you know, geo tags so we're all of a sudden understanding oh, there's no encampment return area is popping up.

Like what is happening there, and for us to make operational decisions.

That is that is an area where we use that data now, but we need to be much more proficient and regular in how we use it.

I understand from the audit, and it was repeated in the audit in multiple places that no encampment really only applies to encampments that we see with uh tent type of locations and not lived-in vehicles.

Is that that's still correct?

Okay, so I mean, and we I think we have a lot of miscommunication with our public about what olive meant in terms of no return zones, no encampment, what for example sample it just as an example, the opening of the Barry SSAF RV parking site.

When we said we're gonna prioritize within a certain radius, there's an interpretation in the public that that meant that those areas would be no encampment zones for more RVs in the future, but we're not communicating, I don't think uniformly from our office from the city to residents about what they should reasonably expect the outcome to be.

Yeah, I don't think we would disagree, and I would just say from the administration's perspective, I think we all, you know, the the list of departments that Eric mentioned, I think we realized kind of on the vehicle front, whether it's lived in vehicles, oversized vehicles, and even Olive, which what it was in attendance for was really for us to learn and figure out how we kind of grow this, has been a success.

Aligning it to those expectations and how we're doing all this work is gonna be critically important.

So as we you know September 30th we were in front of you with the council focus areas talking about we're going to go back to the drawing board on some of these lived in vehicles oversized vehicles will be the the first part of that really in the next few weeks for us because we don't feel it's it is very difficult to have a set of expectations and a set of communications on one front around abatements and another one around lived in vehicles and we want some conform you know some some common messaging and expected outcomes around both of those things where we can with the with the constraints we have around state law or vehicle code.

I think terminology is important too I mean I've always felt encampments are different from collections of lived in vehicles the word encampment means something different but we now hear the interchangeable use of the word encampment by the public when there's a row of RVs versus an encampment along a creek and I and so we need to figure out what is the right terminology to use how do we get that that out there I I think from the standpoint of expectation on SJ31 I you know rather than hope that they get a that people get a response after the fact saying here's what the you know thank you for report we're using it in this way or you know we we're unable to respond to every it might even be better to have right in the front of that report right at the top above it you know set the expectations ahead of time your report is important for these reasons but just know we can't respond to every report that comes in on an individual basis so that right up front people understand what is going to come out of the system because I would say the number one thing we get from residents is an email that says here's the here is the report number for our SJ311 report they close it was closed and the RV is still there.

That's I mean I would I probably the number one email we receive I at least our office receives is is some version variation of that we're not setting the proper expectation about how that will be used.

And I'm a slightly concerned that the response that we make is due to where people are the loudest and where and and you know and the kinds of complaints that we get I know for example and you know without calling out specific locations we have responded quickly when there's a business that complains because they can't lease out their property and we don't respond as quickly when there's RVs in a residential neighborhood I think we have to think through like how are we I just have an example in my case I know you're looking confused about that but we certainly I've seen it occur but but I've seen it occur and um I just want to make sure that we're consistent about the message we're sending out how we're gonna respond and and we're not you know we're not shortchanging some parts of the city over others I I've I just I repeat this over and over again as as somebody who represents a district that has never had a no encampment zone or a targeted large encampment cleanup where but we get the scattered effect of the cleanups that happen elsewhere it becomes very frustrating for the residents businesses and for our office.

So thank you.

Thanks for sharing that perspective and those comments council member a lot of good points there.

Okay we have Councilmember Kamei and that may conclude our comments we'll see.

Thank you so much thank you for the the report and thank you for the response you know I'm not gonna I agree with much of what my colleagues have said and you know managing expectations is um is sometimes very difficult but I think that honesty is always the best policy in that if if we've learned certain things and we're gonna change certain things I think we should say that you know honestly I mean I think that when the Olive program came forth uh you know we hadn't done that before and I think that um there's a lot that was learned but there was a sort of a part two that was anticipated and everybody's waiting for the part two and you know and so I think I think that um you know um exposing it talking about it and and saying you know, even even with the the the cleanups that have happened and um and uh you know some of the lessons learned is not bad to say you know what there are things that were done correctly, there are things that were not, and we're gonna change them.

And I think that um having that honest conversation, I think will help us in the long run as we try to do that continuous improvement.

I want to say something about time.

We all know that it takes it's a very sort of complex job that you all have, right?

And not everyone is patient enough to wait for the complexities to be things to be done and how and all, but when it takes a year, a year and a half, it's understanding that there's a level of frustration of why isn't this being done?

So I just want to say thank you for uh specifying in the response, Eric, the the uh, you know, when you think it's gonna be done, but I also think that as you approach those deadlines or as you're at the halfway point and you're not there, you gotta let us know because I think that back to managing expectations and expected outcomes, you know, we'll get to the time frame when we're saying, Well, wait a minute, we thought it was going to be done by on here, right?

And I know life is complex when you have to deal with many of the different circumstances that may arise, but I also think that, you know, being up front and saying, you know, we thought that we can get this done in six months, however, this is what we've learned, and we can't do it for another six months or another year even.

I mean, there are things that I've been waiting for.

This is my third year here, and I've been waiting for certain things, and it's like, when is it coming?

Well, you know, priorities and all that.

Hey, I get that, but uh sharing information uh will help manage my expectation that it's gonna happen.

So I think that that's also very helpful, and I know that you know I have uh uh certain feelings about 311, but I think that we have all had um that sort of like uh painful, painful experience of of how it's all happening.

I know it's gonna get worked out, but I also think that if it does not find itself moving in the direction that we want, we need a heads up right away because I think that as we start thinking about priorities in the next budget, which is going to be very difficult.

To me, this is a huge pain point for a lot of different departments, right?

And if we're gonna prioritize, we need to put the money where it is necessary to make it happen.

Now we'll see how that all goes, right?

But but I do want to say that you know what we have learned is a lot, and we've come a long way, but I think that we can do better.

We can always do better, and I look forward to seeing some of those outcomes.

If I may jump in, Councilmember Kamei, um given that a lot of the work is expected by the end of January and 2026, uh, as Eric has noted in the response, we can certainly provide you an update.

We normally we would get those updates in the semi-annual audit recommendations report that the can the auditor puts out, but given the proximity to the budget process, we can certainly provide and the fact that some are supposed to be done in short order in a few months from now, we can certainly provide you an update at the beginning of February.

If that works, Eric, for you, just to kind of give you a quick status run through through an information memo of it's it's it's completed, it's almost completed, or we're gonna need to delay it to such and such a month and kind of give you a rundown uh kind of tally of where we're at with these recommendations.

I I really appreciate that, but you know, it isn't just your department.

I think you know, uh a red, yellow, green kind of thing, uh it doesn't need to be like uh take a lot of time, but it would it would help us also know that what we've learned uh has made you know there are changes or whatever it is and um you didn't get there when you thought you were gonna get there, which is okay.

It's really, really okay.

Given, you know, sort of like a heads up to us.

Okay.

Thanks, council member.

Thank you again for the audit and the departmental response or the administration's response, appreciate that.

Uh I think that exhausts our questions and comments.

Let's vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Okay.

Thank you, Megan.

Let's um go on to item.

Let's see, time check, almost 3.30.

We will continue on with item 3.4.

Staff presentation.

Do we have public comment on item 3.4?

We do not.

Okay, coming back to the council.

Do we have a motion?

Or perhaps questions and comments?

Apologies.

Uh Councilmember Duan.

Or I'm sorry, Cohen.

I'm sorry.

I just looked at my screen.

Go ahead.

Councilmore Cohen and then Duan.

Go ahead.

Yeah, thank you.

I want to thank staff for bringing forward the as always.

We need to continue to uh make sure we have the uh fire safety response vehicles that um that are necessary to keep our community safe, and I appreciate this purchase.

Obviously, um I was part of a group that put out a memo on the future presentation of such purchases and some additional investigation.

When I saw this memo, I thought, you know, I obviously come from a lens of thinking about the environmental impact of everything we do as a city, and um we at times have had one of our standard items on our memos, be a climate smart, uh all staff memos had a climate smart um part at the bottom that said here's the impact on the climate of this, but it seems to have been become optional and isn't always showing up on our reports.

But what I was looking for what I look for in every report on vehicle purchases is some uh explanation as to a choice that's been made when we're uh about electrification or not electrification.

I clearly never expect that we will be buying um uh aerial drawn tractor tractor drawn aerial trucks that are electric.

We're probably not there yet in our technology, but I think it's important that we always have in one of these reports that comes to council a an an acknowledgement that we are continuing to look at options, evaluate options, and then explain why the traditional option is still better than the electrification option.

And I think um no matter at this just from the standpoint of the portion of on this memo about um making sure that we do that analysis.

I would have written this memo on on whatever the next large vehicle purchase was that came to council.

This isn't specific to fire vehicles, but I um we did include some examples though of cities around the country that have begun to electrify their fire fleets.

I've taken I've actually uh been in one of the trucks down in Rancho Cucamonga that was pretty impressive and spoke to very happy firefighters who use electric fire trucks.

So we ought to always be evaluating the latest technology, and it's changing rapidly, so having done an analysis two years ago doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done again.

So I just want us to make sure that we're always looking at those options as we move forward on these purchases, and that's the uh the reason for the recommendation.

I also think it's important because we have a city goal of electrifying our fleet plus the state law that requires us to over time electrify our fleet, um, make sure that we as a council are informed as to what the shortcomings are so that when we discuss this at the Transportation Environment Committee and as a council, we're aware of what the city's concerns are about the electrification of our fleet so we can address those um through our budget processing in other ways.

So I will move the memo that was co-authored by uh myself, mayor, councilmember Tordillos, and Councilmember Candellas.

Um thank you.

Actually, with Council Member Foley Vice Mayor Foley, I got a wrong group here.

I'm sorry, I didn't even Vice Mayor Foley was part of that, probably not Councilmember Tordillos on this one, sorry, but we're hoping for a support.

All right.

Thanks, Councilmember.

We'll go to Councilmember Duan.

Well, I appreciate your intent on on your memorandum.

But I've you know, I've always believed that you're very knowledgeable about environment and electrification and so on.

I leave that to you.

But when it comes to the fire service, I think you should go to the expert and you should go to our fire department regarding this particular issues.

Now, this is very based on the fire department apparatus, and we're not talking about fleet.

When you including fleet, let's wait until you know, another time to do fleet.

Now, you know, 27 years in the fire service, I would imagine I know a little bit about the fire rigs and what need to expect it.

Um to go on the fire to to go on mutual aids.

There's many, many stuff that that most of you don't know about fire rigs.

And when you go to Rancho Codova, it's one rig, and then you go to LA, there's one rig, and believe me, pretty soon those those rigs, the electric rigs, they'll be, you know, the apparatus would be a mothball in a in a sense.

And you may talk to a few firefighters, but it that you didn't talk to the the IAFF local to 30.

We're talking about international firefighter.

The technology is not there.

And it's not feasible option for the fire department at this point.

The current electric model do not meet our operational need or range.

Or even forgot for the you know, this recent fire right up the Sierra Road.

They spent multiple hours, and then they have to spend enormous what you call fire watch on the same rig for hours on end.

And when we're talking about, oh, we're gonna run the the diesel generator.

Here we go, we're going back to the same thing.

And then when we have mutual aid down south or even up north, or even out of state for that matter, it's we're not gonna run the generator to get us there.

And then they the what you call the all the mechanics do not have that expertise to in order to deal with electric rigs.

Not only that, they require costly what you call charging infrastructure that we don't have the funding, nor do we have the knowledge at this point to put it together.

That being said, you know, I I do support when when you talk about in general, I know that the state mandates 70% of our fleet to meet electrification and so on.

But you're gonna remember the there is an exemption that stated very clearly that we're discussed, I mean in depth by our international firefighter association and all the departments surrounding us, and that's why we they made an exemption.

And I I for now the diesel apparatus remain the only reliable practical option that maintain uninterrupted emergency response capability.

It is important that we know the jurisdiction listed in the background only purchase one or two apparatus.

We we don't base on one or two.

If there's department out there that actually changed the whole rigs, I mean the whole apparatus program, that would take 25 plus years.

And it took us three to five years just to get the rigs that we have now.

And so I still have some question.

I I like I have a question for our um director Matt Lesh and and uh PW and also the deputy chief uh Dobson to to come on down.

So the first question I have is is for the director Matt Lesh.

Do we have that capability and infrastructure in order to support the electric fire apparatus?

And if so, what is the cost?

What is the timeline in order to make it happen?

Uh two things.

All the measure T firehouses are built kind of pre-readied to accommodate that next level of investment in those complexes, so that what like fire station eight, fire station 32, and fire the future fire station thirty that we're also gonna build will all be ready to receive that like electric infrastructure.

They don't have it there yet because there's no trucks and that meet that capacity right now in our inventory, but they're built for that purpose to be ready if.

And so that's what's the that's why we're positioning the buildings themselves, and we do not have electric fire trucks at this time.

So we were talking about station eight, station 32, station 37.

Other than that, the rest of the station is not ready.

We have not put any infrastructure to support electric fire trucks in those buildings.

And can you tell me what was the cost to retrofit all those stations?

We have not done that.

We've not done that analysis, and one of the things we've proposed is that TNE when we come back, we can present what we think is the rough scope for that for the firehouses plus all of the other fleet.

Thank you.

I have a question for Chief Dobson and you see the push for electric apparatus.

And part of it is also reducing our roads and and looking at compact um fire apparatus.

Can you give us your thought process as being a professional?

I'm I believe you've been on for about 20 plus years.

What is the the pros and con on that?

Yeah, so I think the fire department, so first off, James Dobson, Soundsley Fire Department, Deputy Fire Chief.

Um I think we're open to the evaluation of these new vehicles and to try and look into uh if we can support that.

But I I think you bring up some great points that you know with our mutual aid, with our long responses, with just our call volume, uh, there will be challenges, and I think those need to be analyzed.

Uh as far as our roadways, um, when we look at our current fleet, uh, we have our vehicles up to 20 years.

You're looking at a vehicle replacement timeline of 25 years.

If we start to reduce the size of our roadways tomorrow today, we will have problems tomorrow based on the size of our vehicles and how we operate.

Um, long-term planning is always something that we can look into, but um it's not something that's gonna happen right away as far as our ability to respond.

And I did want to offer an opportunity for uh our deputy chief Patrick Chung, who actually uh manages our fleet to uh to provide some comment.

Thanks, Chief Dobson.

Uh Patrick Chung, Deputy Fire Chief for the Bureau of Support Services.

I manage all the fleet facilities uh and equipment for the fire department.

Uh to answer your question, council member, about uh the expected costs.

I did just happen to research uh the city of Redmond, which I believe is referenced in the council memorandum response to the agenda item.

Uh, City of Redmond's claiming that they spent $350,000 for charging infrastructure for one fire station.

Uh the approximate cost of the apparatus 2.1 million dollars for an electric fire engine.

Right now we're quoted at 1.2 million dollars for a typical legacy diesel fire engine.

So it's uh exponentially more expensive um for cost.

Uh for the apparatus, uh Chief Dobson did mention uh right now we are turning over a small portion of our fleet with the type one engines and the tractor drawn aerials, but as he uh eloquently stated, uh the service life of these apparatus are 20 plus years.

Uh not only is that the frontline service, but as you see in the council uh or the agenda item memorandum, we also hold those apparatus in reserve status as well for an additional five to ten years uh just to cover uh the reserve uh backups whenever our frontline apparatus needed go in for service or repair.

Uh so as Chief Dobson stated, it's a twenty-five-year plus turnaround for us to change our entire fleet when it comes to dimensions and turning radius.

I will say the agenda item that you're hearing right now is for tractor-drawn aerials, those are the most maneuverable aerial ladder trucks that you can purchase based on the fact that they have two operators.

They have rear steer, and they can basically turn a U-turn on a on a dime, whereas a legacy straight aerial truck cannot do that.

The other thing I'd mention is uh some of the limiting factors that we're already working with are the fact that our legacy fire stations um are small to begin with.

So we are in fact taking that into consideration.

Uh, Deputy Dec Director Walter Lynn would agree and confirm.

Uh dimensions, turning radius, approach angles, departure angles, those are all considerations right now that we already take into consideration uh when we procure and specify apparatus.

And then I on top of that, even on the normal calls in a busy station, we're already going over 110,000 calls per year.

Well, for example, they're talking about generator and and running the rigs.

Will that support our response time going from one call to another, especially, for example, station 26?

They're going 26 calls or more.

Will that generator support that electric apparatus to meet the demand on top of the calls and and many other uh activity that uh from inspection to public say, you know, education and so on.

And then after this response, I'm gonna we'll come back around just because we're over our 10 minutes here, and I do we do have a number of other hands up, but go ahead and answer that question.

Great question, Councilmember.

Uh, currently, as it stands, um, we have to be very uh conscientious about a couple different factors that would impact a electric fire engine's capability to perform emergency response operations in our city.

One is absolutely the charging infrastructure.

Uh, they need to be located at a station that has three-phase 480 volt uh charging infrastructure in place already.

Uh the other is uh a couple of the projects we're working on right now with the city manager's office and specifically to our focus areas is closest unit dispatch.

So, what we could potentially see is a fire engine that's assigned to its first due, runs a call at the edge of the border of its fire station's first due, and then it it now becomes available as the closest unit for the next first due.

And so as that fire engine starts working its way outside of its first due to other stations' coverage areas, we need to be conscientious of the range, uh, the operating capacity, how long it's been out running calls or performing inspections.

Uh at some point, that diesel generator will kick on, and we will start seeing uh some outputs of carbon, which is what I believe the whole purpose of purchasing an electric vehicle would be to avoid.

Thank you.

And we can come back to Councilman Duan if if you have further questions.

I do just want to clarify we have a number of hands up.

We are coming up on a time certain item that we would like to hear as close to 4 p.m.

as possible.

I want to just clarify for everybody following along that um the the very uh practical questions being asked by Councilman Duan are exactly what the memo is asking for, just to be clear.

The memo, the group memo is not asking staff to procure electric fire engines.

It's asking for an assessment of feasibility and a report to TNE to help us answer the exact questions that are being asked today.

Uh clearly it is not feasible today, or it would have been in this procurement.

I think what uh a number of us would like to understand is the costs, the feasibility, and uh recognizing that it likely is a multi-decadal, if that's the right word, multi-decade transition.

What is that?

What does that look like?

What are the costs?

It's not something that's gonna happen overnight.

I think we rec I think that's the the entire point of the memo.

I think the concern was that the procurement memo was silent on the topic, and I think we just wanted to highlight that it would be helpful to have some of these questions answered in a rigorous way through a staff analysis that includes fire, ESD, and other relevant uh departments and stakeholders that could come back next year for us to be a little better educated on the topic.

So we can continue with the discussion, questions, debate, but I just wanted to level set what the memo is trying to do in the in the context of this action that we are hopefully about to take.

Let me turn to Councilor Tordios.

Thank you, Mayor.

And yeah, I just wanted to reinforce the point that this is not a mandate, uh, that this is all about exploring feasibility and uh trying to get better cost estimates on the electrification build-out.

Uh I think you know, the previous comments made about the time scale for actually doing turnover of our fleet is why it's important to be proactive in terms of exploring new types of uh fleet vehicles, both on the electrification side but also on the more compact fire apparatus side.

Um that's the the portion of this memo that I really was excited to see uh spend some time over the weekend digging into, uh kind of exploring some of the different recent fleet acquisitions across the country.

I think if we look at that 20 to 25 year time scale and our goals for vision zero for narrowing some of our streets, slowing traffic, encouraging denser infill development, uh, that these are exactly the sorts of explorations we're gonna have to do in the short term to align with some of our long-term city goals.

So I will be gladly supporting the memo on the uh floor.

Thanks, Council Member, Vice Mayor.

Thank you.

I too will be supporting the memo, uh the motions on the floor.

I'm supportive of the of ensuring that the fire department can procure life-saving equipment and want to clarify that nothing in our joint memo is intended to delay this procurement at all.

However, this is an opportunity, it's already been said.

I'm just reiterating to re-evaluate our policy to ensure that purchasing a fire equipment is in line with other city policies, such as fleet electrification and vision zero.

As we work towards creating a greener fleet, it's important that we evaluate our entire fleet, including fire trucks and engines.

I understand that there are some unique challenges with electric fire trucks, which is why in our memo we are not mandating an electric transition, but rather asking staff to explore it.

I also understand there's some potential for zero emissions alternatives to electrification, such as hydrogen.

The second part of our memo asks for staff to explore the potential of procuring more compact vehicles.

Much of our vision zero work involves narrowing travel lanes and tightening turning radii to improve safety.

However, challenges arrive with this due to large fire vehicles not being able to navigate these safer streets.

We're not saying we don't want you to fight fires, we want you to fight fires and take care of our community.

We just want you to take a look and see if there are other vehicles that might be out there and available for us.

As we become a more urban city with a greater focus on multimodal transportation and transportation safety, we should also be exploring more compact solutions to fire equipment.

So again, I'll be supporting the motion.

Great.

Thanks, Vice Mayor.

Okay, I don't see any further hands.

Counselor Duan, did you want to wrap up?

Go ahead.

Or is a friendly amendment that we can bifurcate this.

That you know the the recommendation, let me double check on here.

Recommendation on give me a moment.

So will recommendation two follow in accordance with the state law as uh recommendation three proposed just below.

It just state law provide an exemption for emergency vehicle, police, fire, and medical.

Yet recommendation two seemed to tie future procurement with a comprehensive fleet electrification proposal.

So if we take out, I uh you know, I I read this uh my friendly amendment just takes up your recommendation uh under your memorandum is uh number one and number three.

And it still does everything, but we talked very specifically uh fire apparatus, and the exemption.

Will you accept that friendly amendment?

Just take out you know two and four?

Just accept one and three.

No, it's not I'm I'm prefer to leave it as is.

Okay.

Mr.

Mayor, maybe we have a chance for the first time in my life to make all of you happy.

Sure.

Go ahead.

Our group.

Make a stab at it for once.

So the green fleet policy that we already has have since 2007 requires us to revaluate every acquisition of every vehicle to look for the lowest emission vehicle that is both available and suitable for the work, which I think is what we're all trying to achieve.

We already have that policy in place.

It also includes reducing vehicle size where appropriate.

And so that evaluation happens on every procurement of every vehicle across our fleet.

And so we welcome a chance in the spring when we come to TNE to talk about this a little bit more.

And I think that meets sort of both the spirit of what both everybody is saying here as opposed to trying to change anything we currently have.

We come back in the spring, talk to you about the infrastructure costs, and talk to you about how we continue to evaluate every single time.

That's great.

Yeah, I my sense is the group memo is as we haven't heard any concerns from the administration.

I think it's aligned with previous council direction.

The procurement memo here didn't speak to it, so I think it was an opportunity to highlight the issue and actually ask for some analysis to come back to TE.

And as you've just heard, the uh maker of the motion would like to keep the motion together holistically, which it sounds like doesn't concern the administration and aligns with existing council policy, which is why I was a little surprised we were spending so much time on this one.

But uh we've got a motion and uh we don't all have to support it, but we've got it, and I think we've we're ready to vote unless there's any final okay, let's vote.

Thank you.

This motion passes uh 10 to 1 with uh the no being council member Duan.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

Thank you all.

Since uh we're not at 4 o'clock yet, and we did uh make a couple of items time certain at four.

We're gonna see if we can move through a couple of these quickly before then.

We are on to item 3.5, which does not have a staff presentation.

Do we have public comment on item 3.5?

We do not.

Second.

Great.

And I don't see any hands, so I think we're ready to vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Great, thank you.

We're on to item 3.6 amendments to the agreements with standard insurance company and life insurance company of North America.

My apologies for not reading the title of the last one.

There's no staff presentation.

Do we have public comment on item 3.6?

We do not move approval.

Second.

Great, not seeing any hands.

Let's vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Great.

Thank you.

Um I think the only other item without a staff presentation that should be relatively quick to get through, is going to be item 3.8.

So why don't we go to the award of contract for uh 10 344 Vision Zero East San Jose Safety Improvement Center Road Project?

I think we can take up that item and then we'll we'll turn to our time certain item.

There's no staff presentation.

Let me ask first if there's public comment on item 3.8.

No, there is not.

Okay.

I believe there was a blue memo that came in late as we were came in as we were starting the meeting.

Let me find that.

And it's from Council Dewan, whose hands up, so why don't we start with Council Member Dewan on this item?

Thank you, Mayor.

And colleagues.

As we move forward with Vision Zero, East San Jose safety improvement along Center Road.

I want to emphasize the importance of a strong, consistent outreach to the residents, businesses, and stakeholders in District 7, who will be affected by this work.

This project will bring real safety and mobility benefits, safer crossing, better bike lane, and pedestrian access and improved traffic flow.

But we'll also bring construction impact schedule shift and circulation change that our community, our community must be prepared for.

While the memorandum note several outreach efforts doing design, including mailers, community meetings, and multilingual material recent events at Story and King remind us that our outreach still needs to be stronger.

Outreach should be proactive, multilingual, and ongoing throughout construction, not just at the beginning.

And using every tool we have to keep people informed.

With that, I've moved uh for my memorandum.

Second, no.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

All right.

I don't see any other hands, so let's go ahead and vote on item three point eight.

Motion passes unanimously.

Okay.

Thank you.

If it pleases the council, I might suggest we take a very brief recess for three or four minutes.

We have a time certain item just to repeat this for folks who are wondering.

We're going to hear items three point nine and four point one concurrently, and then we will discuss them together but vote separately.

We'll take uh separate motions, but just to give members of the public an opportunity to put in comment cards and weigh it if they'd like, we'll go ahead and take a three-minute recess and then we'll we'll begin.

Thank you all.

Colleagues just want to give a maybe one minute warning if folks can make their way back to their seats.

Thank you.

Technically.

All right, we have quorum and we have quorum, so we'll start um we'll resume our uh meeting.

We're back from recess.

So again, uh just as a reminder for anyone who's just joined the meeting, we're going to now take up items three point nine and four point one.

Three point nine is restricting civil immigration enforcement activities on certain city properties and facilities.

Four point one is ordinance prohibiting law enforcement officers from concealing their identities in the city of San Jose.

We're gonna take those items up concurrently, meaning we will hear public comment once on both items given the related nature of the issues.

Then we will come to the council, discuss them together, but we'll take separate motions and votes on the two items.

Megan, how many comic cards do we have?

Sixteen at the moment.

Sixteen.

Okay.

So we'll go ahead and um, can we go to ninety seconds per minute and a half per speaker?

Just make sure we get to all of our other staff presentations in a timely fashion.

All right, and uh, let's go and begin the public comment period again for items three point nine and four point one.

I'll start off uh in groups of four, so I'll call four names.

If you could make your way down to the podium and wait at the stairs.

Um, you don't have to speak in the order in which you are called, but I'll call the first four.

Azazel, Deb St.

Julian, Andrew, and Lori.

Please make your way down.

Thank you.

Um, as you know, many of our neighbors are terrified by escalating brutal immigration enforcement.

We should not allow city properties and resources to facilitate even more wide-scale enforcement operations.

Doing so would shout out the community's trust in our local government government.

I urge you to adopt a policy proactively before more widespread right widespread raids reach our city so that we are prepared to say no if when federal agents agents try to commode city resources to terrorize our community.

The use of masks by ICE creates serious public safety risks as residents cannot identify kidnappers from law enforcement who are sworn to protect them.

The potential for abuse is immense, and we've already seen instances where this confusion has been exploited.

When officers operate under mask, it erodes public trust in our government, creates an environment of fear, opens opportunities for impersonators to kidnap our neighbors, and leaves our immigrant community communities vulnerable to abuse, abuse of power.

Our priority is the safety of our community, and any practice that puts them greater at greater risk is unacceptable.

We should not allow unidentified agents to terrorize our neighbors by hiding behind masks.

San Jose identifies is a welcoming city, and we are one of the most diverse cities in the country California thank you very much city council thank you thank you next speaker please good afternoon council mayor um my name is Andrew Siegler and I'm a resident of district three and a member of Surge Santa Clara County um yeah let's let's let's approve these 3.9 and 4.1 you know like our communities are under attack our intermediate our immigrant communities are under attack and you know there's a whole host of other groups marginalized groups that are going to be under attack in the same way soon and um you know this is it's about it's about accountability you know if if a group of masked people came up to me and tried to manhandle me you know I mean I'm good luck but you know if they tried you know I I can't say that I would be like oh you're obviously law enforcement officers you know so I I you know and that wouldn't be good for anybody um this is this is about like making sure that you know people are safe people are not you know needlessly afraid um and uh yeah just let's let and also ICE has no business on city property whatsoever so uh let's let's do this thanks thank you before the next speaker begins uh we have Lori and Deb St.

Julian that have already been called and I'll call the next four people so they can start lining up Kayla Kim Kay Hedges and Maria Lynch thank you please go ahead.

My name is Deb St.

Julian I'm a member of Surge Santa Clara County a D2 resident and a volunteer responder with a rapid response network I strongly support agenda 3.9 and 4.1 watching my watching ice terrorize my neighbors has changed me.

As a rapid responder I have seen ice stage which means you park a group of vans and use them to process shackled and handcuffed neighbors and you move them from an abduction or kidnapping vehicle to vans which take them to detention I have seen staging in South San Jose behind jack in the box behind medical offices behind Chavez market.

We should not allow our city properties and resources to be used to terrorize our neighbors like this we should do everything we can to stand with our neighbors against this brutish thuggous activity in our city we must restrict any activity like this from being done on city property and of course I oppose hiding people's faces I have had agents say to me it's none of my business who they are or which agency they work for this is happening now in San Jose I support these thank you next speaker please hello good afternoon again my name is Kayla I live in District 5.

I'm a member of Surge of Santa Clara County and I also am a volunteer responder with a rapid response network I do support agenda items 3.9 and 4.1 for 3.9 the overall large scale immigration enforcement around us brought so much fear um for our San Jose neighbors so I believe that we need our city to be place of countability and trust.

The city properties and resources should not be used for these immigration enforcements.

So please adopt policies to prevent this.

In regards to 4.1, there's a lack of identification.

When there is a lack of identification and masking of law enforcement, it brings confusion and the possibility of impersonators for kidnaps or other harm.

It creates fear and blocks accountability.

Our priority should be the safety of our community.

Law enforcement must be transparent and respect constitutional and human rights.

We are a beautiful and diverse city.

Let's look out for each other and demand law enforcement to be identifiable and unmasked.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, good afternoon.

Um I'm a San Jose resident, a member of Councilman Mulcahy's district.

I am a member of Surge Santa Clara County, and I am a rapid responder.

And I'm here to ask that you not allow ICE to use city grounds or facilities.

Um staging grounds or allow ICE to wear masks.

San Jose cannot be complicit in terrorizing our friends and neighbors in the community.

We are one of the most diverse cities in the country, and the people who live here are proud of that fact.

They are proud of the fact that San Jose or San Jose or Santa Clara County is a sanctuary city.

Please support agenda items 3.9 and 4.1.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Kim Gaptill, D6, surge member, rapid responder, and I'm here today in support of agenda three item number 3.9 because American citizens need to show up for their undocumented siblings.

These people are our siblings.

They are being scapegoated, kidnapped, and disappeared.

You but then you already know that.

So we cannot allow city properties and resources to be used for enforcement operations because immigrants need to trust that we have their backs.

You guys say that all the time.

And this is a perfect example of where we can show that.

Please support a resolution 3.9.

As for 4.1, when officers operate under masks, it erodes public trust in our government, creating an environment of fear.

It opens opportunities for impersonators to kidnap our neighbors and leaves our immigrant communities vulnerable to abuse of power.

I urge that the San Jose City Council direct the staff to develop a strong ordinance that prohibits all law enforcement officers from concealing their identities.

We must uphold full transparency, another favorite word here, of officers and prioritize safety for everyone.

We deserve a city where law enforcement is visible and accountable.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Before the next speaker begins, I'll call the next batch of four names.

Cindy Bautista, Jeremy Barus, Lawrence Dang, and Dilza Gonzalez.

Please come down to the to the stairs over here.

Please go ahead.

Good afternoon.

I'm Catherine Hedges.

I'm in property in D2, a member of Surge, and your allied rapid response.

We need to be protecting our immigrant community.

This travesty of mass men coming into neighborhoods and kidnapping people as they try to go to work, as they pick up their kids.

This is what was happening in countries, people fled as refugees.

We can't let it happen in our city.

We need to follow the state's lead in blocking them from hiding their identities, no masks, must have their badges visible, must have their agency visible, and we also must prevent stop the city from letting them use our property for staging for raids for whatever.

The city can stop it for themselves.

As everyone knows, first it came for the brown people, but it could be the brown people who speak Chinese next, or the people who showed up in a No Kings protest.

We need to stop it now.

ICE has shown that they will back out of communities or resist enough.

We need to resist.

Thank you.

Please approve both measures.

Thank you, next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Councilmember.

My name is Cindy Bautista.

I'm leaving District One, and also I work with Pasos Community as a community organizer at Secret Heart Community Service.

I urge the council member to adopt strong policies that protect our communities by preventing federal immigration enforcement from using city property to carry out harmful actions against families, our families, and by requiring all law enforcement officers, especially including ICE agents, to remain fully identifiable and accountable.

Our city strength lies in this diversity and the trust between residents and local government.

Transparency and accountability are essential to public safety.

San Jose must ensure that its assets and its officers never used to install fear, but to a whole protection and unity for all who call these cities home.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council members.

My name is Dilisa Gonzalez.

I am with Secret Har and ICPEN, and I'm also a district for residents.

Um today to strongly urge you to support for two important items on tonight's agenda, item 3.9 and item 4.1.

These policies matter steeply to me, my organization, and my community because they represent safety, fairness, and trust.

First, it's the right thing to do.

As our city leaders, you have the responsibility to protect us all, all San Jose residents, regardless of our backgrounds or where we come from.

Second, right now, many of our immigrant communities, and every anybody that doesn't speak that speaks a different language or doesn't look American enough, just like me in majority of these rooms, we are in constant fear of getting kidnapped, of getting taken away from our families.

We need to show, you need to show us and our families that San Jose stands with them, not against them.

And third, these policies help build the trust our residents' needs to feel that San Jose is truly a safe place for everyone, a welcoming place.

We are asking for strong leadership, not just in words, but in policy and action.

So please vote yes on this.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Mayor Mayhan and members of the City Council.

Jeremy Bruce with Amigos de Guadalupe Center for Justice and Empowerment.

We're also part of the IPEN network.

We urge the San Jose City Council to be strong leaders for the safety and well-being of our immigrant community and approve both ordinances to set reasonable standards for federal enforcement operating in San Jose and to restrict city property from being misused for immigration enforcement activities.

Thanks to the leadership of Councilmember Ortiz, as well as council members Candelas, Campos, Cohen, Kamei, and Doan for signing on to the memos.

These are not normal times, and we need courageous leaders to demonstrate their commitment to community, not only in words but in action through policy and resources.

When the federal government attacks constitutional rights and the fundamentals of democracy, we are all under threat, and we must stand with our most vulnerable neighbors.

Now I would like to read a little bit of testimony by one of our immigrant community members who is directly impacted and did not feel comfortable attending today.

She says knowing that the city wants to take concrete steps to protect us, such as preventing city property from being used for ICE operations gives me a lot of hope and peace of mind.

I feel like finally our voices are being heard.

These proposals mean more than just policies.

They represent a step toward justice.

Thank you.

Before the next speaker begins, I'll call the final group of four.

Rebecca Armandares, Ms.

Rayan, Mark Trout, and Sean.

And then we also have Lori, who was called but has not yet spoken.

Thank you.

Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Lawrence.

So here's the memo.

Um, when they come for one, they come for all of us, and seeing ice with mask, like wearing masks to to apprehend undocumented immigrants is wrong.

It is cruel and it is inhumane.

I'm supporting in favor of item 4.1 and 3.9.

The first one I'll talk about is the 4.1, where SB 2627 prohibits the concealment of law enforcement, and SB 805 requires visible clear identification.

We need to be a city and and that that welcomes everybody.

I've been I've I was born and raised here in St.

Jose, lived here most of my life, and even through the struggles, St.

Jose continues to be the authority city that we that we can build and be thankful for that we for that we can be thankful for here.

But unfortunately, with ICE activities, it has spread fear.

They have committed inhumane, cruel activities, and that is wrong.

It hurts the many people.

As they did.

When they come for one, they come for all of us.

And when and when the when the worst happens, which is right now in the face of government shutdown, we need to stand together as a community.

Right now, we should not tolerate ICE and C and CBP agents violating our residents' constitution constitutional rights, and we should not let them disregard the federal authority.

We must stand united.

We must continue to work together, and we need to do everything we can to ensure that we can build a city and follow that that welcomes everyone in a in a diverse state and a diverse democracy.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker, please.

Well, I was telling the officer over there, uh something providential, I believe.

I just walked in here, wasn't watching you guys, didn't try and time out like this, but I was talking uh a couple hours ago after I was preaching at uh San Francisco State University to a police officer.

I said, Officer, I just want to encourage you guys to come on out and and uh help the ICE officers to deport the illegal aliens.

And then I come in here, and you're talking about the very subject I was addressing with that officer, but I voted for you, Matt.

Now, before I start, how long do I get?

I don't see the timer.

Oh, wow.

Man, okay.

Uh it says rulers are not a terror to good works but to the evil.

Will thou then not be afraid of the power?

Do that which is good, and you'll have praise of the same.

For he is the minister of God to be for good.

Many times I'll call a cop Reverend because he's a reverend, even if he's not a Christian because of his office.

But you know, the fact remains that these ICE officers are heroes, they're doing their duty, and uh it is uh against the law to impede a uh federal officer from doing his duty, and so we need to back them up, make it proclamation that we are gonna support ICE to deport the illegal aliens.

Okay, we have 40 million illegal aliens in here, not 20, 40 million when they stole the election in 2020.

We have proof they stole the election.

We all know that they stole the election, and we as a city council need to come out strong and say, look, we support America.

Okay, this is not all the nations of the world.

Thank you, next speaker, please.

Right way, we are legal, you know, the immigrants.

Your time is concluded.

It's gonna be your time, sir.

I believe we're zero time up there.

Thank you.

All right.

Let's give everybody their opportunity to speak.

Go ahead.

Always fun to follow a moron.

I wholeheartedly support the city ensuring that all city spaces be free of ice, who should not be able to hide their faces.

I also implore the city to provide additional considerations and protections to unhoused, undocumented people to prevent them from becoming more susceptible to ice.

I implore you to create service provider placards for aid workers accessing park trails and city lots to assist unhoused, undocumented people living nearby.

Preventing us from providing aid to people is hard to reach.

Areas in hard to reach areas makes them separate from the item 3.9.

I implore you to create a six-month moratorium on all sweeps and RV seizures to prevent unhoused and documented people from losing important documents, contacts with support providers, including legal, and becoming more vulnerable.

The city making them more vulnerable to ICE.

This is not equal to the intent of the item.

I implore you to increase staffing training and barriers at all shelters.

I implore you to post multilingual signage at all in-housed service agencies with immigration assistance information in addition to the rapid response network.

I implore you to increase protections outside service service providers where people may queue up standing in line for aid, must not be impediments to said aid.

I also implore council member Mulkey to make it clear that ICE is not welcome on any of its many properties.

Thank you.

So we have three cards for people that have not yet come to the podium.

We have Rebecca Armandares, Ms.

Rayan, and Lori.

So your opportunity would be right now to come to the podium.

Otherwise, we'll move on.

Thanks, Megan.

I'm just pausing for a moment.

I don't see anyone else approaching the podium, so I think we will come back to the council.

Thank you to everyone who shared a perspective during public comment.

I'm going to be brief.

We've had a lot of discussion of these topics, but I do want to thank uh Councilmember Ortiz for his leadership on these issues, colleagues who signed on to memos, uh IPenn for your work in the community.

Over the last quite a few months now, we've heard harrowing stories of residents who are fearful, fearful that masked men with no identification could come and take them from their home, their place of work, even the grocery store, and that their loved ones would not know what happened to them for quite some time.

There are people, many in our community are worried they will not be able to tell the difference between law enforcement and kidnappers, and that is unacceptable in San Jose.

Our police officers almost never wear masks because they don't need to, they work for and with the community with a lot of support from the community, and I firmly believe that's why we are once again the safest big city in the country.

The foundation of public safety is trust.

And when there is a trusted relationship built up between law enforcement officials and the community, the people they serve, you get better outcomes because people feel comfortable reporting crime.

They feel confident in sharing evidence, serving as witnesses, and engaging in a process that truly is a collective effort.

So I just want to recognize Chief Joseph, uh the department, all of our officers for the work they do every day to foster that trust.

And I would like to see our federal government uh emulate the approach that we've taken here.

And I do understand ICE's responsibility for enforcing immigration laws, but I think uh we could all agree that it could be done in a much clearer, more consistent, more transparent, fair, kinder way, uh, without the level of fear and uncertainty that's been injected into all of our communities.

So I won't I won't go on and on, but uh just want to affirm my support for these measures.

I do want to just ask two clarifying questions for staff.

Um, I think on a similar principle on the city property, we have certain rights and responsibilities as a city.

Nora, can you just explain the extent to which the city has a we believe a lawful right to restrict the use of city property for uh immigration enforcement activity?

If you could just give us a little more context on what we at a high level maybe can and can't expect from this.

I don't want to create false expectations for the community either.

I do think it's important that we are as clear and accurate about what we can and can't do as possible.

So I don't know, Nor if you could just speak briefly to that.

Sure.

Um, thank you, Mayor.

The um this proposal coming forward has to do with um city property that might be used as staging areas or things like that with ICE.

And it is possible for the city to um restrict the use of those properties, but we would want to post and we would need to um chain off areas or things like that.

Um as we've talked about before, and I think this is uh well understood even in the community.

There are some city um properties uh that are open to the public, and we really cannot impede um enforcement efforts in those areas that are public, but we are able to protect private spaces in those city properties, and uh we have done a lot of work to um train our staff and inform the public that um uh certain warrants, judicially signed warrants are necessary for um ICE to get back into private areas and those kinds of things.

So we we will be bringing forward an ordinance uh if council so directs dealing with the staging.

Thank you, Nora, that's helpful.

And then Matt Lush, quick question for you.

Um part of the memo on the second item is directing staff to identify city-owned properties that could be commandeered for activities like staging, processing, or establishing an operational base.

I think Nora was just speaking to those kinds of activities as opposed to every last remnant parcel the city the city owns, just to be clear about that.

Just from a staff workload perspective, can you give us a sense of how long we think it'll take for us to just have a sense of what those relevant properties might be?

Thank you, Mayor.

Mayor uh Matt Lesh, director of public works.

We believe we can get this done in the month of November.

Rob is going to try to escalate as much as we can uh with the 14,000 properties that the city owns or has any rights to.

We just want to make sure it's thorough, so it does take a little bit of scrubbing, but we think we can get it done in the month of November.

Okay, thank you.

Well, I uh I appreciate that and uh appreciate uh my colleagues' uh efforts here, and um I'm gonna turn now to Councilman Brewer Ortiz for his comments and questions.

Thank you, Mayor, uh, and thank you to my colleagues who um either on the rules committee voted uh unanimously to move forward both of these items or signed on to um our memos.

I just wanted to begin as uh a young man who was raised in a Catholic home by devout Catholic grandmother and attended catechism at St.

John Viani.

I'd like to start my speech with a Bible verse.

This is my first time doing this, but uh I've also read the Bible, uh, quoting Leviticus chapter 19 verses 33 through 34.

When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them.

The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native born.

Love them as yourself, for you are foreigners in Egypt.

I am the Lord your God.

So important that we don't just quote the verses that agree with us or our argument that we read the Bible uh entirety and we understand and live through it in our daily lives.

So today I bring two measures that go to the heart of who we are as a city and what it means to truly serve the people of San Jose.

The first ensures that certain city-owned properties such as parking lots, garages, and open spaces cannot be commandeered or misused by federal immigration agencies for civil enforcement operations, including staging, processing, or detention.

The second ordinance aims to require federal agents to wear visible identification and prohibits the use of face coverings that obscure identity during public interactions.

The ordinance also establishes information sharing protocols between the San Jose Police Department.

I want to thank the chief and the department for being a partner as we've been writing these uh pieces of legislation, as well as the city manager's office and community leaders to ensure transparency when federal agencies operate locally.

Together, these policies will reflect San Jose's commitment to community safety, accountability, and the protection of immigrant and working class families across the city.

San Jose is a city built by immigrants, originally being named Pueblo de San Jose.

Yet in recent months, federal immigration actions have generated a deep sense of fear.

Fear that prevents residents from reporting crimes, discourages workers from showing up to work, and keeps entire families from accessing the services they rightfully deserve.

When ICE and other federal agencies operate without transparency, and when they use local property as staging grounds, that fear multiplies in our communities.

It erodes the trust we've worked so hard to build.

And where federal agents cover their faces or conceal their identities while engaging with the public, it sends a message that they are above accountability.

And that is truly not the San Jose way.

As a welcoming city, we need to send a message that our city resources should only be used to serve our community, regardless of their citizenship.

And we will not allow them to be used to enable intimidation or federal immigration rates.

I also want to just thank our partners in the immigrant protection and empowerment network.

Some of them are here, and the countless residents and advocates who've stood with us for their tireless work to keep families safe and informed.

Colleagues, these ordinances are about living up to our values.

They say to all of our residents, you belong here, you are seen, and you are protected.

I kindly ask for your I vote and I motion.

Well, I guess we're gonna vote on both of these separate, so I'll end my comment.

Feel free to make a motion on the first item if you'd like, and then we'll come back around.

Okay, then I will uh motion for 3.9.

Thank you.

Great.

Megan, I'll let you sort out who got the second.

I don't wanna upset anybody.

I need their votes for things.

Alright, uh, just kidding.

All right.

Uh so we will continue on again.

You can comment on either item.

We do have a motion on the floor on 3.9.

We'll go to Consumer Compos.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I just want to make a brief comment, uh, sharing my gratitude and sincere appreciation for Surge, IPen, and the Rapid Response Network for your steadfast commitment to supporting the safety and well being of our immigrant neighbors.

I'm proud to have colleagues like Councilmember Ortiz, Councilmember Candelas, um, uh, Councilmember Kamei and um all of the the council uh colleagues who have um been supporting this memo uh from the start.

I am really proud to see San San Joseans showing up for the values that we share, and I am committed to standing with our community um that is committed to justice for all.

Thank you.

Thanks for those comments, Councilman Campos.

I'll turn now to Councilmember Condelos.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, mayor.

I I too want to uh just uh thank uh Councilmember Ortiz for his leadership, as well as my colleagues um who uh help uh not just uh co-author the the both both uh policies um but have showed up to rallies who have shown up to um you know community calls for action, um as well as the administration who um has as uh you know helped step up stepped up to uh to figure out how we can best uh not just protect our residents but be able to afford that due process that that um our our country was built on.

Um, you know, now more than ever, it is important to do everything we can to support our our our immigrant community.

Um, you know, as as previously mentioned, San Jose was recently named the safest big city, and um it is undoubtedly because we are a welcoming city for all, and we will not play a role in targeted attacks against any of our residents.

And and you know, I've said this before, over 41% of our residents who call San Jose home identify as immigrants, and and that majority of whom have long settled here in the United States for more than 10 years, and as a proud son of immigrants, I know that we don't build a stronger San Jose by turning our backs to our to our residents uh when they need us most, and uh we build a stronger San Jose by standing uh with our immigrant community with policies that ensure that city property is for city uses and uh when our residents trust our uh local law enforcement.

Um recently San Jose Fue nombrada la ciudad masegura in la nation, y eso sin duda is porque somos una ciudad para todos andar attaques dirigidos uh contra nuestros residents.

Uh mas del quarenta percent of residents que llaman hogar a San Jose, say identifican como immigrantes, y la mayoría de los quales anestado establecidos in el país formas de 10% of our residents who call San Jose home identify as immigrants.

And I as a proud proud of immigrants, know that we don't build a stronger San Jose by turning our backs on our residents.

Especially when they need us most.

We build a stronger city by supporting our community.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Appreciate those words.

And let's go to Councilmember Trudious.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just wanted to speak briefly to some of the impacts we've already seen in our local district three community from the current climate and all of the fear circulating.

You know, we've seen a dramatic reduction in the number of folks who come out to community events.

I've talked to local nonprofits who say that they've seen a plummeting and the number of people who come out seeking their services.

We know that we have unhoused folks who've expressed that they're afraid to engage with city outreach workers.

In advocating on behalf of our immigrant communities, and I will be probably supporting both of these items.

Thank you.

Thanks, Councilmember Vice Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Ortiz, for your leadership on both of these issues and for uh bringing them to rules and and now we see them here so that we can vote on them as a council and move them forward the word.

I will be supporting both of them.

I do want to give a shout out actually and a thank you to police chief Paul Joseph for your support of the mask ordinance as well, because that will affect your officers and how your officers identify themselves and masks that prohibit them from wearing face coverings that will uh obstruct their their faces.

So I appreciate you being open and uh willing to work on that issue as well.

I uh we are in uh the most horrible times that we've ever been, and I uh together supporting the immigrant community is important for all of us to stand up and say enough is enough, and we support our immigrant community and we support those around us, and we speak for them when they cannot speak for themselves.

Thank you.

Thanks, Vice Mayor.

Let's go to Councilmember Duan.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you for all the speakers.

As an immigrant to this country, we must unite, we stand together to make sure that we protect our immigrants.

And I I hear you, I stand with you, and I will be supporting both of the item three point nine and four point one as well.

Thank you.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Let's go to Councilmember Cohen.

Thank you.

First, um, I want to thank the people in the audience who are here who are on the front lines of this issue uh every day.

This is not what you signed up for, but we're find ourselves in a difficult time, and I really appreciate um way more than than those of us up here, you are the ones uh interacting with community every day, dealing with the impacts of what we're seeing from this federal government.

You know, and as our as the federal government demonizes and dehumanizes our role as a city is to protect, and in order to keep our community safe, we need to make sure that people trust their law enforcement, and so this is an important action.

Um, obviously, regardless of I issues of s of supremacy and federal government.

We also have um to model what we believe to be the right behavior in our city.

And I want to thank our police department for already having a policy in place, but this codifies that policy into city ordinance that we will make sure that our officers are identifiable and um and behave in an appropriate way as they interact with people on our streets.

You know, it's disappointing.

But they're saying we don't unfortunately we can't take advantage of that offer from the state right now to have National Guard at our sites because people no longer know what law enforcement agencies they can trust and which ones they can't.

And people are might not take service if they see any kind of force uh or any kind of um agencies at these locations, and that's just disappointing what in such a short time has happened to damage the reputation of uh um law enforcement and our military.

So I'm happy to support this policy to set an example of what we should be doing in local government and hopefully someday again in federal government in terms of um a relationship with our residents.

Thank you.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Appreciate that.

Let's go to Councilmember Kameh.

A lot has been said that I agree with with all my colleagues.

Um I want to thank all the speakers today for sharing your thoughts on this issue.

Um, and uh I want to thank uh my colleagues for um for our memo as well as uh for the support uh for the community.

And I really believe that everyone in our community deserves to feel safe.

And with that, I will be supporting the motion.

Thank you.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Appreciate that.

All right.

Well, thank you all for your comments and uh support for this work.

It will continue, and I think we're ready to vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Great, thank you.

All right, thank you all.

All right, we are gonna go back on the agenda to item three.

Oh, I'm so sorry we didn't get the other motion for approval for the other item.

There we go.

It's a formality of that, my apologies.

All right, great.

Doesn't look like we have any other hands.

Let's vote on item 4.1.

My apologies.

Thank you all for catching that.

Motion passes unanimously.

Great.

Thank you.

All right.

All right.

Thank you all.

All right.

Thank you.

We're gonna continue on, uh, by going back to item 3.7.

This is the Citywide Capital Improvement Program annual report for fiscal year 2024-2025.

We have a staff presentation.

I'll turn it over to Matt and Catherine.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I'm Matt Lesnar, I'm the director of public works.

With me is Catherine Brown, the assistant director.

I'm being told to lean forward in the microphone and use my outside voice.

So I'll do my very best.

I'm Matt Leshman, the director of public works, and with me is Catherine Brown, the assistant director of public works.

Uh, after this, as I talk about we, it's not just we here or we just public works.

We'll be talking about all of the folks that deliver the capital improvement program for you and deliver our projects.

So again, when we say we, it's our folks and as our partners in DOT and PRNS and ESD and airport and every place that has capital project teams, both on the program side, funding side, and everything else that we use to deliver these projects for you.

So, first off, we'll do a brief overview.

We'll talk about the overview of the programs as a whole.

We'll talk about some CIP and the numbers and how we did on procurement because that's always how we focus on what we bring to you in terms of our contractors and talent, and then we'll focus on some project highlights.

Back one page GOP by the numbers.

One there we go.

Okay.

So as you see in the overview, this is what we talk about in June after you have long deliberations.

This is the end cap of what we talk about in June.

What we prospectively say what we will deliver for you.

You hustle us through that nice presentation, give us the ominous dominance and tell us to move on our way and get these things done.

All of these areas, whether it's building our community centers, our water system, police facilities, courtyards, these are all the projects of programs that get touched in the CIP.

We have general outcomes that are listed here, but the whole focus is to make us safe, attractive, and useful facilities for our residents and the employees that use these to deliver services to the residents.

So we like big numbers.

We have 328 active construction projects, and that's anything from ideation and feasibility all the way through design and construction, project closeout, and delivery.

That value of those projects in flight are at 1.81.9 billion dollars.

There are 236 projects over this major projects threshold of 740,000.

And so you'll I'll list several times majors and minors.

Major projects are projects of a value over 340,000.

So last year we had in flight 236 of those projects, and 92 of them were minor.

That's under 740,000.

And we completed closed out all the projects and all the contracts of 73 of those projects from the year before.

Per our budget book and how we report these, 93% of our projects were completed on budget.

Our target is 90%, and so we exceeded our budget target of being on budget last year.

Our projects for completion, 85% of our were completed on time.

That is on target with what our goal is.

Our objective is at least 85% or more.

We're obviously interested in achieving more than that.

And when you think about what on time means, is that at the time of award of the construction, we say we will have beneficial use of that site or whatever the thing we're building within two months of that date.

When you have a nice six-month project, that's pretty easy.

When you have a four-year project, that gets a pretty narrow window when you're gonna land that project.

And so, but 85% of our projects are delivered on time.

So of those 328 and the 1.85 billion, you see the two concentric circles.

On the inside is the numbers of projects in the CSAs, in the respective CSAs, and the dollar value of them, and you can see the very large portions in the transportation piece and in the environmental piece, both with all the paving projects and roadway and sewer projects, and then also uh and the regional wastewater facility at the massive projects that are going on in that CIP.

Of the completed projects, the 73 completed projects, roughly uh half of them or so were in the uh in the neighborhood services group, and so again, seeing these colors for those of us in the narrow colors, it makes us hard.

But we can see the breakdown of where these projects were in the different areas.

We take our procurement responsibility very seriously in finding responsible contractors to deliver our projects for them.

And one of the things we always track is how what is that bidding environment.

We'll talk about that in just a little bit more detail in a moment in the next slide.

But for all of our major projects and minor projects, we have at least four on average four bidders for every one of our projects.

That's a it gives us a temperature check on the competitiveness of the market in terms of construction.

Of those projects of those 83 awarded projects, 53 of them were major and 30 of them were minor.

So we awarded 80 projects.

So you think about how many were averaging about six a month that were awarding construction contracts.

Of those four project bids per average, we had estimated total of 330 bidders were received for all of our construction projects, and so we issued out, like I said, 83 construction awards for 200 million dollars.

Okay, this is the local business enterprise and small business business enterprise slides of how we let out our contracts.

On the left side is for our majors, on the right side is for our minors.

What you'll notice is the trends that we're always watching for trends.

Year over year, it's not like one year over year, it's not the thing we look for long term ongoing trends.

And when you look at the $740,000 mark for majors and minors, over time, as construction gets expensive, we try to have we have a CPI that moves that up or down and aligned to the construction costs, but we're seeing that we're having more and more construction projects at tipping over into that major threshold.

We'll see how things go over these next few years, but we keep watching that as well.

Um we see, and we it's typical that we wouldn't have too many small business enterprises taking on some of our larger contracts, they just don't have the wherewithal to pull those off, and that's why we really look at the detail of what our miners are going and really try to maximize the number of our minor award contracts going to our smalls and our local contractors so that they can get their foot in the door to do some of our construction work and then hopefully partner with and become subs to some of our larger contractors, and that's what we have uh annually.

We have this meet the primes event where we bring in our smaller contractors to meet the bigger contractors to network and create relationships and also just to grow so they can become more efficient and effective.

And now we'll talk about some successes in project delivery.

All right, onto the pretty pictures.

So I'm gonna cover some of the CSAs and just talk through some of the projects that we've completed as well as some of the ones that we have ongoing.

Uh, the first CSA that we're gonna cover is the community and economic development.

This uh is primarily focused on our Rule 20 undergrounding projects.

Uh, in this picture, this is the Delmus West San Fernando project.

Um, and again, these Rule 20B projects are developer developer funded for specific projects.

Like they they fund some of the improvements to underground the overhead utilities.

There are five active projects and one completed during this fiscal year or the last fiscal year.

The next CSA is neighborhood services.

Uh the image in this slide is the Almaden Lake All-Inclusive Park.

Uh, this project contract award was 1.4 million and reached beneficial use in February of this year.

Uh, this is an all-inclusive playground of about half an acre for all ages and skill levels with sensory and physical play for children of all abilities.

Other notable projects in this CSA that are ongoing are some of our trail projects, uh, the Starbird and Hammond Totlat project and the North San Pedro Bassett Park projects.

The next CSA, the environmental and utility services.

This is the second largest CSA, both by dollar value and by number of projects.

So we have a total number of 109 active projects in this CSA and completed over two dozen projects.

The picture is highlighting the filter rehabilitation project out at the regional wastewater facility.

Uh so my notes say that uh it operates at an average of 110 million gallons per day, which is the largest tertiary filtration facility in the western United States.

And this project replaced filter media and upgraded this to a modern air scoring system.

Other notable projects within this CSA that are ongoing are all of the storm sewer piping projects, our green stormwater infrastructure projects, as well as some of the large install and small trash capture device projects.

Uh moving on to transportation and aviation services CSA.

This is the largest uh CSA with the largest number of projects and dollar value.

So we have a total of 118 projects in the CSA with a five-year CAP dollar value of 1.7 billion dollars.

Uh the project highlighted is the Mount Pleasant pedestrian and bike safety improvement project.

This installed new park strips and added 48 ADA compliant curb ramps at various locations throughout this corridor.

The uh some other active projects that are ongoing in this CSA include some of our local street pavement projects.

Uh the center road project that was approved earlier is also in the CSA, as well as uh better bikeway and taxiway uh Victor projects out at the airport.

Our public safety CSA.

Uh we wanted to highlight the uh the PD air support unit hangar relocation.

We don't have any projects that were completed in this last fiscal year, but we anticipate having several to highlight in next year's report.

The air unit support hangar uh is a contract value of about 12.6 million dollars.

And this is relocating from the uh, I believe West, East Side to West Side.

I was wrong.

Um, and this is building a new one-story building with the office area and two hangar bays, one for the helicopter and one for a fixed-wing aircraft.

Next, we have our strategic support CSA highlighting uh the tech interactive chillers and cooling tower replacement.

Who doesn't love a good crane project?

Uh the contract award on this one is about 3.7 million dollars.

We have a total of 26 projects in the CSA uh valuing about 135 million.

Uh this specific project replaced the existing water cooler chillers and the cooling tower at the Tech Interactive Museum and reached beneficial use earlier this year.

Uh and last but not least, uh, just highlighting some other important work that goes on during our capital with our capital teams, which is the housing production.

Uh, we're highlighting here the Via Del Oro Emergency Interim Housing Project that was completed in March of this year.

There's a total of eight active projects that are ongoing that we will have completed this fiscal year, uh, and six that have already been completed.

And we are available for your questions.

Thank you both, and thank you to you and all the partners invest in capital projects for the great work you're doing out there.

We truly appreciate it.

Do we have any public comment on this item?

We do not.

Okay.

Public didn't come out in droves to talk about our exciting capital projects.

All right, we'll turn to council or condellis first.

No, thank you.

Uh no, I I appreciate the report and the presentation.

Um, this is uh the nitty gritty of of making sure that we're uh not just keeping our city going, but making sure that we're allowing uh for you know the the the buildings that our staff relies on to do their work operational.

Uh I had a quick question on on slide twelve with regards to our uh procurement um and uh and and the local and small business awards uh process.

Do we uh do we have or maybe you could provide a little insight um Matt on the local uh preference for business and what that looks like in the bidding process for for our city?

Thanks for the question.

So there's two criteria that come in, and we say follow use the same process for local small.

Um first you have to be local, then you can be small, and I always mix those up like the smalls and local.

You have to be one then the other, and it's a requirement you have to have a uh a business unit or with people in it of 35 people or less to be small and in Santa Clara County to be local.

And so we do have, and then on our minor projects, we do have a 5% incentive uh that we have added in uh in 2022.

So we're tracking that to see what effect that is, and you can say, well, there's a big bump-up between twenty-one and twenty twenty-two.

Um miners move around quite a bit, and it really depends on the type of work that we issue out that yeah.

That's right.

I'm looking for a five-year trend to see if it really uh is impactful towards the type of contract that we have.

Got it.

Do we have a say like a San Jose preference or a local like something more localized than the Santa Clara County preference for our we do not?

Santa Clara County is the only preference uh in terms of local, and then we have um and that's the same as what we use for purchasing.

We use the same um same standard for as they do.

Right.

I I mean, have we considered or maybe you can share your your thoughts on on a San Jose preference.

It could be per percentage.

I know the city of Santa Ana, for example, gives a seven percent preference to Santa Ana businesses for bidding, and and and you know, there's several several cities across the state that give a actual preference to those uh projects that are bidding, you know, that that may not um you know that may not get it based on other core criteria, but I I think you know, when we have you know, I I've heard several examples of a contract tractor having or uh uh a company having an office, say in Sunnyville, but headquartered in in another county, other in other part of the Bay Area, but you know, they do have that that office um, you know, say in Milpitas or Sunnyville.

Well, are there as actual companies that are you know based in San Jose that bid on our projects and that you know they're competitive with the price and um you know, the the bid goes to to other other those other companies.

Have we have we thought about that?

And if so, I'd I'd love to have your feedback on that.

Yeah, a couple of years ago we've studied this a couple times, and we'll certainly we'll go back and look at it again to see if it would be materially change what what would be the outcome because again, they have to beat them on price as well, and so whether they're local or small, sometimes doesn't matter in terms of pricing.

It does a little bit on the incentive, um, but in terms of are there that big of clientele that it would eliminate an is there an actual pool that would demonstrably move some off the table.

And at that time we didn't see that there was a pool of and we studied all the prior bids to see you know if those things if the a different consideration of this geography would change something or a twist of the local small um since we don't have they just basically they say yes we have less than 35.

They don't say we have 27 or 42.

We don't have that type of um minute detail to see whether if we change the number difference if that would matter, or if we change the way the county city thing would done, we didn't study that, but we looked at what we currently had bidded and we said there wouldn't be a lot of material difference, but we'll certainly look at it again and we'll be happy to report out next year again.

No, thank you, Matt.

And and obviously, you know, it has to be lowest, lowest bid, lowest responsible bid.

Um and and so that you know I think that's that should be precedent because we these are public dollars and and we are we have to be judicious to the taxpayer, so we they get their the most so we get the most bang for the buck and ensure projects get completed on time.

Um but but at the same time seeing seeing if if we can um you know provide you know um uh uh a local like a San Jose incentive is something that I think I think would I I would love to see the data on that and see if if there may or may not make the difference.

And uh ultimately if it's even if it's just a uh even if it's a if an um uh a minor incentive on on a bid, uh you know, uh ultimately at the at the at the end of the day, they have to be competitive and be able to do the work.

So I think that that's that's what we're looking at.

Yes, if we let out 83 contracts, we did 83 at least 83 solicitations, likely.

Sometimes we did mute multiple things, we had rebid it multiple times sometimes, and so we have at least 83 solicitations that happened last year, and how many of them would materially be moved?

And so we've studied that, we'll continue to study it, and we'll certainly bring back a little bit more nuance in next year's report for you to see if it would make a difference.

Um the hard thing is we we're putting up we've we put a lot of hoops into our contractors that they have to jump through, and then we say you have to be able to responsive to this, otherwise you don't get to participate.

And they I just don't want to make I one thing I don't want to make it harder for our contractors and that's what and I don't think we're not talking about content.

I just that's the thing we'd have to think through how we do that to make sure that it's an easy thing and easy to officiate to make sure that we don't make it harder.

And and obviously, obviously there's a difference between having a requirement to being able to bid as opposed to being s being a criteria or a check the box like hey, you know, we're bypassing uh a competitive uh um uh proposal um and and foregoing uh an opportunity for a San Jose based business for a business that's based in say, you know, Reading, no, no offense to to to those folks in Reading, but um but but you know they're they're they're Apple's Tapple.

So, yeah, I know what's the only last thing I'll say to that is, and it's not to refute it, and we'll certainly add more just like you're asking, and we'll certainly study some more just like you're asking, is likely those large companies that have a mar larger headquarters someplace else are bidding on our major contracts anyways, and they don't get any incentive in bidding on our major contracts for those things.

It's only on the miners, so it's it's pretty so they're and they're likely not that interested in having these satellites, and it's so again, it what is it one or two that would make a difference?

And that's the thing.

We'll study it, we'll come back to you.

And so that those are the th you asked me what I think about it, and these are the things I think about.

Yeah, I uh that's what I get for asking an engineer uh, you know, to uh a question, right?

Thank you, Matt.

Well, before I was trying to make you happy now, not so much.

I'll move uh uh approval of the staff recommendation.

Thank you, council member.

All right.

Uh Councilmember Mulcay.

Thanks, Mayor.

I I wasn't gonna ask this question, but since he's at it or make this comment, let's just make sure they just don't have a PO box in the county, um, and that they actually have brick and mortar and uh and a body count in in the vicinity.

You don't need to answer that, it's just a statement.

Um hey, on the eighty-five percent, this uh so thank you, Matt and Catherine for the report.

I mean, the scope and scale of what you work on is just, you know, I know you're having a blast doing it because it's just such a variety, right?

Um I'm curious on the 15% of the projects you're not finding yourselves delivering on time.

Are there any themes that you're finding?

Is it you know the types of projects?

Is it um, you know, capacity?

What what are you dealing with in terms of where you're missing timelines?

Uh it's everything.

And one of the and it's that's where and I hate to have that answer because there could be um there's varying ways that we can get extensions to deadlines based on rain delays or material supply supply shortages or anything like that, and so it's any number of things.

There some complexity that was in a particular project that's different.

You asked, are there any themes that struck out to us?

And the answer is no, not really.

And we always try to say, like, are these sewer projects really cause not able to deliver on time?

What's the reason?

And we always try to we do lesson learned on every single project.

Um, it's a theme that we brought up on housing projects.

We do lesson learns on every construction project and discuss them, like what can we do better?

Um, and so I don't think to answer you very directly, we don't have themes that say can we get this?

And I think the most we've ever seen usually is up to maybe 90% on time delivery in terms of all of them.

And so I we're not that far off meeting our bogey.

We're me we met our bogey, but we're not that far off from our highs of meeting the bogey either in our prior reports.

Okay, you didn't quite walk into my next one, but my next one is I mean, you guys are an architecture design, civil engineering, right?

You've got the whole shooting match.

Are you currently utilizing AI for any of those um you know in any of those areas, and are you considering more tools?

How did I walk into it with that one?

That's a very distant.

I mean that would have been a leap.

Um we are uh we are exploring AI on one front right now, and that is in uh sewer assessment.

Um, there are some sewer because um we attempt to get through all video camera and assess all of our sanitary sewer pipes, the two thousand miles of sanitary sewer pipes every 10 years, and so it's about two thousand miles uh that we had chunk in two we get try to chunk it into ten percent of the city at a time.

It's very mundane work that people are having to stare inside the the pipes and see any anomalies, see root intrusion, see pipes that punctured people that haven't told us about connections and so forth.

Um, AI is something that we're exploring.

We have one contract right now.

We're doing a pilot of that.

Um, there are some other cities that jumped whole hog on it, they're saying mixed results.

Um we also don't know if it's cost effective, it might be faster, but it might not be cost effective.

And so we're exploring it on one project to see if that's a replacement, but in terms of other AI, we're not using AI presently on any other project that I'm aware of.

Not yet, but open to it.

I'm open to all sorts of things, yes.

Okay, thank you, Matt.

At least it didn't call it a dumb question.

All right, we'll go.

I'm kidding, I'm kidding.

All right, we'll go to Council More Kame next.

Thank you so much for uh the pro the uh report.

Um I know that this report, you know, focuses on everything that was accomplished and all of that, but as we look at the uh five-year capital improvement program, you know, one of the things that I'm sort of like not overly concerned, but I I wonder about, right?

In terms of in terms of, you know, I know that we have a lot of deferred maintenance and all of that.

So, you know, how do we how do we balance what needs to be done today and the priorities that uh city council and the mayor set, you know, through the budget process and all of that, and what is uh you know, like bursting at the scenes, and you know, obviously we want to be able to get to it and and um and improve it and do different things, and and I I just wonder, you know, in terms of all the capital improvement program, is that just all the new stuff, all the shiny stuff?

Not at all.

The crane thing that uh Catherine showed, there was a broken chiller that was on top of that that we needed to replace, and it because it was not repairable, the repairs are about a million replacements are about six, and so we try to repair and repair repairs.

There are replacements of improving.

We do lots of things at fire stations and the police department at community centers and libraries, active um existing buildings.

We do things here at this facility at our our corp yards.

Um, all if you think of all of our existing uh pipes in the parks, they're all existing places that we're either replacing or repairing.

That would be so the new things would be like the measure T stuff for Fire Station 8 or Fire Station uh 32 and uh 30 that's coming along.

So all the new ones, those things are net new.

So, how do you how do you uh distinguish which ones can be this year?

And you know, as you look at the five-year capital program, you know, uh, uh do you just kind of like take a look at conditions of everything and say, oh, these are the things that need to move now?

So some of it's the color of money, where the particular the project the pots of money are coming from of how those things are.

So certain segments of the certain CSAs have more money or less that we can invest in those.

We're certainly talking to our maintenance teams.

The I mean they're some of the largest drivers of saying like this thing is causing us a lot of headaches.

That's what that chiller replacement was.

Um, and so like they're saying we're spending a lot of money repla repairing this thing, we need to get this replaced.

And so we took and same thing with our sanitary sewers, our DOT maintenance crews are telling us this is sending us to go look at this thing, this is causing us massive problems, and we're having to go out there every week to clean it, and so we need to get out there and take a look at it.

Uh regional wastewater facility is an example.

We're replacing basically the entire plant um over time.

And so there's uh airport, we're building all sorts of new net new things, but we're also replacing some existing things that the fire station were and the the fire station that we moved over recently, the employee uh staff building that we moved over to the uh west side, and then now the hangar, we're moving all of these things uh to different places that were net uh failing.

At some point you meet the life expectancy of the building and it's time to go.

And all I want to add is that the public works department does an excellent job of giving the budget office those assessments during the budget process, and then there's meetings among uh budget staff and other leadership along with P PW and and the different departments to debate and decide, you know, what we can, you know, what goes forward in each given budget.

So it's pretty solid recommendations and things that can't be supported by the different funding sources that are that have uh specific uh restrictions on them obviously fall to the general fund, and so we try to prioritize some of our one-time funding towards that, and or give you a a list during the budget process of things that we would like to get to or know are coming up, like the waterproofing of this building, which I think was somewhere in the order of close to 40 million dollars.

That's that's coming up.

So we're we're constantly doing assessments of that and also thinking about what you know future bonds we might need to do as well as other ways to get grants.

Excellent.

And I just want to give you a kudos um on our one-on-ones when you came forward with all of the uh information in terms of all the wonderful things that are happening in District One.

Uh so I wanna say how much I appreciate it because some of the some of the work that you do is a little bit hidden, you know, and we don't see it until it comes forward at this time.

So I just want to say thank you for that.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Yeah, I'll just echo the thanks.

The the projects you and your teams and partners of the departments deliver have a huge impact on people's experience of our city and make people proud to be residents of San Jose.

So I just want to thank you guys and your teams for all the hard work you do and for this report.

Thank you.

Alright, let's vote.

Do we have a motion for this item?

We did from Councilmember Candelas.

Thank you.

One second.

Motion passes unanimously.

Awesome.

Alright, thank you all.

We're on to item 8.1 grant agreement with We Hope for operations at the Arena Hotel Interim Housing Project.

We have a staff presentation.

So we'll give Eric and Cupid a moment to get settled in.

All right, good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

Eric Sullivan, Director of Housing, and with me is Deputy Director Cupid Alexander.

And today we're going to just speak to a brief overview here of the changes we're making at the Arena Hotel.

This was as I'll provide some quick history about this.

And this site has had some challenges, but there's still significant opportunities here to improve the overall operations, and we'll talk through some of the changes we're going to be making here to look forward to how we're going to stabilize some of the financing based on an agreement we have reached with the Santa Clara County Housing Authority that their board recently passed, and then three, how we're going to redevelop the site and the work that we have been doing with HCD to acknowledge some of the challenges that occur when we're experiencing the city with coming up with you know podium towers-style bills, which is what this site was originally envisioned for, and doing that with extremely low uh AMI targets.

So we've been working with HCD to uh recast this project and to bring forth a project that is more economically feasible.

So that's kind of the quick history on it.

And I'll just provide some quick facts and then keep it will go through some of the details as to how this new operation is going to be in place and the new service provider we're bringing to the table.

So as I mentioned about four years ago, this is about a home key project that was done.

The target for this was to convert this from its current interim housing site into permanent housing.

So this opened up back in 2023 in August, and we have it was originally 89 unit beds.

It's been operating over the last six months through months improved operations, trying to mitigate some of the impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods, but with that also came in an acknowledgement that it's time to look at a refresh of the site, look at some transition opportunities, and identify ways in which we can over the next three years uh continue to improve and stabilize operations and get to a more aggressive plan to rebuild it, acknowledging the incoming uh funds from the Santa Clara County Housing Authority that'll help stabilize some of the operations at the site.

This is part and parcel to the overall repositioning that we've been doing and looking at the entire interim housing portfolios.

We discussed earlier today, which by the time uh Matt Lesh and his team complete uh Ceroni later this year will be at 22 sites across the city, uh totaling just over 2,000 beds.

So we're managing a large portfolio, and so with that comes uh a charge to look at that portfolio from an asset management perspective and how we best managing to the efficiencies of operations at each of these sites.

And in this case, for this particular site, not only its efficiency of operations, but its eventual rebuilds.

So Cupid.

Thank you, Eric.

Uh, thank you, Mayor and Council.

For the record, I'm Cupid Alexander, deputy director, and my work focuses on the unsheltered response grants and data.

So I'll take a few moments to walk through the current operational challenges and opportunities at the arena hotel, as well as where we're heading next as we continue our repositioning of the arena.

So the arena is one of our more complex interim housing sites because of where it's located, right in the heart of a busy business district along the Alameda.

Uh that visibility has its benefits, but it also presents uh unique operational challenges.

The site experiences high pedestrian activity, nearby business traffic, and significant daily movement around the corridor to ensure safety and community alignment.

We've expanded on-site security staffing, and we work closely with our local partners.

From a funding standpoint, the original home key allocation limited the staffing model so we could sustain it.

To keep this site stable, we supplemented operations with Measure E funds, which allowed us to maintain appropriate staffing levels and responsive coverage.

On the redevelopment front, the original plan to convert the arena hotel into permanent affordable housing development has had its delays.

Given the current construction costs and financing constraints, the original concept proved financially infeasible.

In response, we've issued a new request for proposals to identify the qualified development partner to bring forward a viable redevelopment plan for the site.

We've also continued to focus on managing neighborhood impacts.

To address this, we're leveraging our internal supports team.

So thank you, Beautify San Jose.

And then we also have our internal SJ Bridge program.

That's our relationship with the goodwill to employ individuals who are unhoused, and they've provided some cleanup support.

And we've also leveraged our outreach services and resources to connect individuals in the adjacent areas.

Over the course of this last year, we've also utilized the community advisory committee to maintain open communications, respond to community concerns, and strengthen neighborhood compatibility and safety.

Those ongoing partnerships have been critical to keeping the site integrated into the surrounding community while it continues to serve its intended purpose.

So moving forward and looking ahead, we're focused on strengthening operations, ensuring a seamless transition and management, and securing long-term financial stability for the program.

We hope we'll assume operations and management of the arena site.

They bring strong experience in interim housing, case management, and community-based services.

If that rings a bell to you, they are our Berriessa operator.

So they operate Berriessa right now.

Under their leadership, the program will maintain a comprehensive structure that includes supportive services, property management, building maintenance, and site security.

At the same time, the city has an active procurement process underway to identify a new developer for the next phase of the project.

This ensures we're advancing both the short-term operational needs and the long-term vision for the site.

One of the most important steps forward is what Eric mentioned, which is the subsidy layering partnership with the Housing Authority.

The Housing Authority Board has approved $2.1 million per year for the next three years to help support operations at the arena.

This will allow us to maintain staffing, strengthen services, and help more residents transition into permanent housing.

This approach, which is commonly called subsidy layering, positions the site for long-term sustainability.

In short, our focus is on continuity, stability, and outcomes.

With WeHope Managing Day-to-day operations, the Housing Authority partnership supporting financial sustainability and redevelopment planning underway.

The arena is positioned to assist individuals coming indoors while providing stability and a path forward for those most in need.

With that, I'll turn it back over to Eric to close us out.

So thank you, Kiwi.

So that's just a quick summary of how we're repositioning this site.

This is the beginning part of looking at some of our more older sites as part of our overall shelter system to look at opportunities to ensure that we're maximizing operational efficiencies, we talked about earlier this evening, as well as some repositioning opportunities to ensure that this entire portfolio is viewed not just as a continuing service to our unsheltered residents as well as their pets.

I will note we run about, we have about close to 400 pets within the shelter system, rivaling the current animal shelter center.

So it is a large system for both humans and their pets, and this system is constantly being updated and reviewed from an asset management perspective to ensure we're getting the best use of all these dollars.

So thank you for that update.

Do we have any public comment on this item?

We do.

We have two speaker cards.

Gail and Sean.

Please make your way to the podium.

On the subject of pets, I just wanted to uh bring up one issue.

I think because I know there's been several pet issues.

I think everywhere it would be great if people who are moving into these places and out of camps went through a uh training animal behavior class for the pet as well as for the person because a lot of these pets aren't have never lived inside, and either of the people.

So I think it's something that would be great for everybody.

Um I think they would benefit from that because I'm seeing it right now at the hotels, and so that's what I think is a good idea.

Um, I wholeheartedly um support WeHope.

I think I was one of the first people to mention it and say, hey, maybe we should do WeHope.

Uh but anyway, um my one concern is because now I'm hearing We Hope, We Hope, We Hope in a lot of different arenas.

I just don't want them to be the next home first because Home First had every contract everywhere and things went south.

So I just want us to be cautious and make sure that we have We Hope and this group and this group and this group and this group and balance things out so that we're not doing another too big to fail kind of thing.

Um I think that it's really really important and it uh the thing that we're most here to serve is unhouse people and make sure that we get them off the streets successfully into a whole other life forever, not just so that we write a report and it's good for six months and we got another person because what I see a lot of is people just going in a door and out of door and in a door and out of door, and I don't want to see that happen again.

Um and the arena has been a mess, and other places are a mess.

So if we could just make sure that we don't create another too big to fail, um love we hope.

Um, if we could do that, that would be great.

And I think that animal training for everybody before they move in would be a benefit to the pet as well as the people.

Thank you.

It appears uh Gail might no longer be in attendance, uh, but we have a new card from Chris.

Chris, please make your way down.

Hello.

Um, nice to see everybody here.

Um it's been a while.

I'm Christopher, and I live at the Arena Hotel.

Um, once again, things are being done without us even even knowing the future of what our stay is.

Like we we were unaware of this meeting.

It's we haven't even had a community meeting since since the transition happened from when we lost uh our last uh council member.

Um but you know uh and at the arena hotel, I've learned a lot there, and I've seen a lot of the mistakes that are that are happening there are are now happening at other uh sites, such as the um the the all girls site.

Um things like the animal attacks are still happening to to uh uh the residents and and there needs to be something done about that.

Um it's nice that that you guys are in the that they're implementing certain dog policies that that uh restrict dogs from from being being off a leash, but if but if they don't have some sort of muzzle, then then the dog is going to attack.

And you know, it happens, dog bites happen.

My dog was viciously attacked um twice within within uh uh three-day period, and he ran away, and it was the most horrific thing that I had to go through.

Um, and to and to hear how home first handled it was something that I never wanted anybody else to go through.

So I had to file a lawsuit just to make things happen like once again, but um it's it's been interesting uh experience with home first.

It's nice to have a new provider in-house.

Um I think I think we hope has a great history um from their beginnings.

Um I remember when I first learned about We Hope in their uh showers that they provided in the community.

It was a very unique uh uh unique story, and I look forward to their providing services in our facility.

Thank you for that, share.

Thank you, and it appears Gail is not here, so back to council.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you to our public speakers.

Uh Council Walking, let me turn to you first.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um just want to acknowledge uh Eric and Cupid.

I think we first met um at those CAC meetings.

I think Cupid, you and I were probably the newest faces in the room, and um, you know, they were uh difficult um conversations under difficult circumstances, and I just can't thank you enough for how much attention you've put, not just on the challenges that are happening every day, but this sort of the systemic challenges that were created by that home key project in the first place, and the fact that you've stuck with it.

Um I know that I speak on behalf of certainly um the Islamita Business Association, the residents um, you know, who have who have been kind of loyal followers and and challenged by some of the things there, but also the residents who have also, and you've heard from Chris who I also met at the CACs early on.

Christopher, excuse me, and um just the fact that we're here making some decisions to move forward to create a better circumstance for that property.

Um so thank you.

Um I want to have you elaborate um a little bit more on some of the specific challenges that were associated with this site, Eric.

Um, probably you're the best to address it, particularly given that it was a home key project.

I think, you know, some of us may know more about those than others and share any insights into how those factors have contributed to the difficulties and kind of the decision we're making today.

Yes, thank you, Councilman McKay for that question.

So HomeKey Program, you know, provided a good opportunity, you know, during a peak time of needing to bring individuals indoors to acquire the site and invest in converting it and doing some significant, but not complete, but significant construction to prepare the site.

It also came with stipulations regarding the service uh to close to 60 units of under 30 percent formerly homeless individuals.

And for a downtown project where you need to build a tower, and as we've seen with the gateway tower, that required a collaborative effort of city-county housing authority putting 70 million dollars in public funding into it in order to bring the tower out of the ground as well as you know, conversations and negotiations with uh the county to raise the AMI floor, acknowledge PSH is not a serviceable population for this type of physical build.

The arena hotel suffers from that same challenge is the eventual redevelopment of this site and the necessity to service, you know, 30% below AMI, that's out of sync with the type of build that's needed to come back at that location.

And this is the conversation that we have opened up with HCD to request sort of a recasting of this project in order to get to one that is financially feasible.

And this is where we have to sort of sync up the expectations and sort of the intended use of the site and policy around that with what is economically feasible for bringing about fourth aside.

And we appreciate the housing authority coming through to give us another three-year run, reduce some of our operating costs within the system.

Now, within those three years, as we're putting out we already put out an RFP to bring in a new developer, we need to also have the conversation about what is in economically feasible project at this site going forward and where are some restrictions with Home Key because we're gonna have a similar challenge with Pacific Motor N uh to raise that AMI floor.

So it's encouraging to know that we've got interest in the long-term redevelopment play of this particular site.

Can you talk about the, you know, what our goals might be for the redevelopment, perhaps, you know, your hopeful timeline for how we might be able to kind of roll this out.

Just yeah, so we have an RP out now to bring in a new developer as part of a complete sort of refresh of the team at this site.

We're hoping to secure that new developer by the end of this calendar year.

And with that, quickly over the next three to four months, recast the project of what is doable and go back to HCD to say here is a feasible project for how this can be rebuilt.

Here is the amount of funding that the city may have available to invest in it, maximize leveraging and tax credits and other uh resources of project to hopefully get it into uh funding cycle by the end of 2026, and then maybe come out of construction sometime beginning of 28.

Uh that would be the goal, and then that'll basically cover sort of our three-year sprint that we have of commitment from the housing authority towards the financial resources.

And then that will allow us, hopefully, within that sprint of time, really try to align the requirements of Home Key with the fiscal realities of our current economic condition for building towers in the city and hopefully reconcile those two.

Where it's still an affordable project, uh, but maybe it focuses more on workforce, which is what the Gateway Tower allowed us to set that precedent for, and then hopefully subsequently set that precedence for the Pacific Motor and rebuild as well.

So there's gonna be an in the meantime, right?

And so now we have We Hope that will be our on site uh manager.

Can you talk about the timing of that?

And I what I want to make sure is what I'm concerned about, and I know because we've been hearing um, and maybe Cupid, this is a good one for you to to help us answer.

You know, sort of the in the meantime in the transition between uh home first and we hope, there's a period of time when that's gonna happen.

And the concern in the community currently is, you know, look, I have the had this experience as a as a property owner where you got somebody on the way out, they sort of care less about certain things until they turn it over to the next one.

I want to make sure we have a plan to make sure that uh you know, home first, you know, doesn't um shirk any responsibilities as they're passing the baton over to we hope.

Can you talk about how we're gonna prevent that?

Yeah, absolutely.

Thanks, uh, Councilmember Mokehi for the question.

So right now, as of November the 18th, that is the expectation for We Hope to step in.

We will still have Home First on site until December.

We had an intentional transition period to avoid that.

We've already engaged with the conversation on both we hope and home first moving so we can have a seamless transition.

Uh and to the point uh that you mentioned with Home First, we've been very clear.

Eric has had personal conversations with their CEO.

We've had an expansion of our EIH portfolio, and we are making it very clear that if you want to uh participate in this, we have expectations and we will be following up on those expectations for the arena.

We have an intentional effort to make sure there was that overlap period so we wouldn't have any balls dropped.

Great.

And I think it would be helpful, and we heard from Christopher, you know, there has been limited communication by the on-site provider with the residents of the arena hotel historically.

So perhaps we can talk offline and figure out a good communication plan.

And if the managers aren't going to do it, perhaps we should be doing that proactively to make sure people know what's happening on the ground.

The business association, the nearby residents who have been participating in some of those meetings are are more aware of the transition that is occurring, but I think we should consider the residents of the property currently so that they know what's happening.

And I'd appreciate your support in doing that.

Yes, we can certainly do that, and we can look to ensure that the residents are duly informed, set up a community meeting to talk about the transition and work with all the parties.

Great.

Thank you.

And with that, I'll move to uh approve the grant agreement, with We Hope on item 8.1.

Great.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Appreciate all your thoughtful uh questions and uh how closely you have engaged with operators, CAC and other neighbors, city staff, and really throwing yourself into the operation of this site from day one.

I appreciate it.

I think it's what we all have to do with the sites in our district to make sure they're successful for everyone.

Let me turn to Councilmember Cohen.

Yeah, thank you.

I want to thank you for uh bringing this item forward.

I'm just gonna be brief and say how exciting it is that we hope is offering services at other locations.

I've been incredibly impressed by their work at the very SSA parking site.

We will say their rapport with the residents, their ability to provide what I think is an incredible service and their ability to get people placed, and their record is incredibly strong, and I've been hoping that they would be able to scale up in some way.

Obviously, they need to scale up smartly and thoughtfully, but I do hope that they I do hope that we hope we'll be able to uh offer services at multiple locations in the city as as they scale because I've just been incredibly impressed, so I'm happy to support this action today.

Thanks for those comments.

Agreed.

Uh appreciate you highlighting the performance at Very S.A.

parking sites, been really really impressive.

All right.

I don't see any other hands.

Let's vote.

Looks like that's unanimous.

Yes.

Thank you, Megan.

Thank you, Eric and Cupid.

We are on to our final agendized item, which is item 8.2 amendment to the San Jose Municipal Code adopting the 2025 California building standards with local technical amendments and repealing superseded San Jose reach codes.

All right, we will begin with a staff presentation and then come back to the council.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

I'm Lisa Joyner, Deputy Director and PBCE and the Chief Building Official, and I am joined by James Dobson, Deputy Chief and Fire Marshal for San Jose Fire Department.

And we're talking about the 2025 California Code adoption.

The building code adoption process happens every three years.

The international building codes are the model for the California building codes, which in turn are the basis for our municipal code.

In our municipal code, Title 17 covers the fire code and title 24 covers the building code.

The 2025 California codes become effective on January 1st, 2026.

The proposed ordinance adopts the 2025 edition of the California Building and Fire Codes with amendments.

There's always some amount of modifications to the base code, either to the code section number to the language itself.

So this ordinance updates any previously adopted local amendments to match code language or cross references in the new code.

It also updates our municipal code to eliminate existing local amendments that have been incorporated into the 2025 California codes.

So related to the Title 24 Building Code amendments, we will remove one local amendment related to the required seismic separation between buildings, and we'll remove the reach code amendments as are now incorporated into the 2025 California Energy and Green Codes.

We will retain three previously approved amendments to the 2025 California Building and residential codes.

And I'll pass it to special testing and inspections of concrete foundations, JIP board chairwalls, and braced wall panels with JIP board.

Thank you, Lisa.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

My name's James Dobson, Deputy Fire Marshal, Deputy Fire Chief and Fire Marshal for the San Jose Fire Department.

The San Jose Fire Department continues to focus on protecting life, property, and the environment through prevention and response.

Since the last code adoption in 2022, significant event significant events have identified concerns throughout the state.

The Home Depot fire at 120 Blossom Hill Road burned to the ground, releasing hazardous runoff into our waterways and toxic smoke into our environment.

While an illegal act initiated this, it was exacerbated by a second unlawful act.

An individual who could not easily be identified shut off the water to the sprinkler system.

Energy storage system fires and Moss Landing in Southern California release massive amounts of toxic smoke into the environment, threatening communities and firefighters and causing millions of dollars in damage to our energy sectors.

The palisades and Eaton fires in Southern California destroyed thousands of urban homes and businesses, forcing over a hundred and eighty thousand people to evacuate.

The fire started in the wild fire hazard area but spread into the urban environment.

The San Jose Fire Department is among the most active in California in code analysis.

We regularly collaborate with designers, manufacturers, contractors, regulators, certified testing facilities, and legislatures throughout our work.

Our focus continues to be on supporting and the development to create vibrant San Jose economic community.

We have identified ways to improve our municipal code that we think will assist designers and developers to navigate our codes.

Part of this is putting our policies, which are directly required of the fire marshal and the building official into the code.

This will minimize the need for resubmittals, which can cause delays and increase costs.

Lastly, we've conducted a thorough evaluation of our code amendments to determine which can be eliminated and where the model code can be used.

There are eight proposed amendments.

Six proposed amendments based on stakeholder feedback, provide clarification, incorporate existing policies as code amendments.

These policies are already being implemented but cause confusion because developers don't know where to cross-reference the underlying policy.

Two proposed amendments regarding alternating tread stairs and outdoor rooftop storage of and handling of hazardous materials are newly proposed.

Of those six, I'll just do a brief uh review of them.

And the reason I'm doing that is because there was a lot of questions that came up about our code amendments.

The code currently requires two-way communications.

And what this is is if somebody gets uh trapped on a floor that they can communicate within its command posts.

But a separate construction permit is not required currently by the fire code.

Designers and developers usually request that the system be deferred until the two-way communication system contractor is selected.

This consistently creates plan review challenges for developers as the new review process is added after the initial review is complete.

It causes project delays and confusion.

Creating a separate construction permit will simplify permitting process and allow the two-way communication contractor to obtain it directly.

And it will likely reduce project delays and thereby lower costs.

For cooking operations, we are currently not allowed, we don't allow it under membrane structures, such as 10 by 10 pop-up tents found at many unpermitted cooking sites outside of our special events.

This amendment codifies the current requirement but allows for an exception of larger tents where there may be an automatic sprinkler system.

Reverting to the new code will eliminate this tool that we have to restrict unpermitted cooking.

Codifying existing cooking operation policies under membrane structures while creating an exception for tents equipped with automatic sprinklers provides flexibility for special events.

The purpose of the amendment to relocate the class one stamp pipe hose connection to the intermediary stair intermediary stair landing is actually a current policy, and it's in all of our high rises and is in place in buildings throughout San Jose.

It moves the standpipe connection away from the door, the exit door, and minimizes the amount of hose that will be in the stairwell, causing conflict with the people that are exiting.

It allows for deeper penetration of our firefighters into the building.

This amendment basically puts it into the code that this is where it is, it's supposed to be.

For the fire code, in NFP 855 requirements and the fire code have had the most significant changes currently.

I mean, we're seeing more changes in those code sections than anything else in the code.

Large scale fire testing is already required to reduce spacing for energy storage units.

The challenge is developers don't have a code that provides clear direction regarding the testing requirements.

Many jurisdictions just don't allow reduced spacing in their communities, therefore not allowing development to occur.

San Jose has worked with designers, battery manufacturers, testing laboratories, and developers to successfully conduct large scale fire testing, enabling these projects to move forward and be developed safely.

We have multiple projects working to create national testing standards and have and then they appreciate our participation.

One of the test projects recently identified developed identified design problems that would have contributed to a thermal runaway propagation, which is what you saw on Moss Landing.

The manufacturer corrected the design and was able to pass the test, and they're able to move forward with their project.

This amendment will clarify to the industry as the code catches up what standards we should have for those tests.

San Jose created an a required wildland urban interface map or the WUI construction map.

With that, we determine what construction standards needs to be built in our WUI.

This map that we have currently includes all of the hazard severity zones that are now listed in the fire code.

That's moderate, high, and very high.

Requires the same requirements in moderate, high, and very high.

Sorry, the new code that's going to be adopted, it omits moderate for the local responsibility areas.

We feel that, especially with the advent of looking at the fires in Southern California, that it's important that we make sure that we have consistency between the SRA, the LRA, and our WUI map, our wildland urban interface map.

That's the that's one of the last ones that are already in policy.

So there's two that are not in policy, and one is there's an exception for stairwells that allows alternating tread design to go to the roof, to go to elevator rooms.

Alternating tread design, it presents a hazard to firefighters.

When you're going up and down stairwells in low visibility environments wearing SCBAs, you can't see your feet.

If you miss a step on an alternating tread design, you go down four levels.

Commonly, you fall and you get injured.

That's what we're trying to avoid with this amendment.

We're not trying to increase costs.

If you look at the cost of those, and I just did a Google search just before this meeting, they're the same price.

So it's just for firefighter safety on that.

Last one, as far as the new amendments is there's a new code section that allows hazardous materials to be stored on a roof and be considered outdoor storage.

Outdoor storage in the current fire code requires separation from buildings and from property lines so that it doesn't impact the building.

Putting it on the roof causes it into directly potentially impact the building.

Any chemical release, chemical reaction.

It's also really difficult for firefighters to fight up there because there's not really well built stairs going up there, and sometimes alternating tread.

These are some of the things that we have concerns over as far as our amendments on the rooftop storage in particular.

What we're looking for is a tactical pause.

We want to see what the implications are of starting to increase quantities for the whole building up to 25 to 100%.

Right now we have control areas in buildings that specify how much we're allowed to store.

We talk about it as maximum threshold quantities.

That's how much you're allowed to store in a building by putting it on the roof.

Historically, it's always been considered indoor, but with the new code, it's out, it's not included.

So now you can increase those amounts.

We want to see what that potential is for not only our firefighters but for our residents.

We have a lot of hazardous materials use in San Jose.

So those are the new ones that I wanted to talk to.

I do want to say that uh appendix D is also where we have an addition, and you'll see it mentioned here.

So, one of the requirements of the Fire Code official is that I'm required to give a turning radius.

It doesn't specify it in the code.

It says the fire code official shall provide it.

So I'm trying to put it into the code so that I can provide clarity to our customers.

Our customers are saying, hey, I have to go to multiple spots to find this information.

Why don't you just put it in the code for me?

So we're trying to answer that question.

So we do have a number of deletions that we're going to repeal.

They're designed to reduce complexity, and also that they're included into the code.

We are proposing to remove one and two family dwelling unit review requirements, it's a duplicate in the code.

Failure to comply with a stop work order, it's duplicated.

Cannabis extraction room, gas detection interlocks, and required exhaust, it's a duplicate.

Spill control for secondary for hazardous materials liquids, it's a duplicate.

In our Municode plus the fire code, so none of these when we remove them will add additional costs.

So lastly, I want to talk about some of the things that we're modifying.

We're adding some definitions to provide clarity on large-scale fire testing as well as the just what is an energy storage system.

Let's see if I can change this a little bit.

So they said, is there a way for us to build the backbone that kind of looks at the what the expected hazard is in the building and see if we can go ahead and build to that?

So we created an amendment for that.

But one of the things that we found, it was starting to negatively affect, and we would feedback our red our our places like across the street, the Starbucks, the restaurants, where they had no interest in having large pile storage or uh high storage, they just wanted aesthetics, a really nice high ceiling.

So we're reducing that down in the code as far as making modifications.

So overall, when we look at what our modifications are, we're trying to enhance the built environment.

We're not trying to add additional layers on or costs, we're just simply trying to create legislation that moves our processes forward.

I appreciate the time, and I'm gonna pass it back over to Lisa.

Okay, so next steps are that we will be providing training sessions in early 2026 to highlight the significant changes between the 2022 and the 2025 California codes, and this is offered to design professionals, developers, contractors, really anybody who wants to come learn about the codes and listen to us.

And we are available for any questions.

All right, thank you.

Let's go to public comment first.

And just to confirm we're back to two minutes for these public comments, right?

Actually, once we change it, we keep it consistent going forward, just to be fair to everybody.

So let's keep it to 90 seconds, please.

Got it.

We have Danny, Greg, and Alex.

Please make your way down to the podium.

Good evening, Mayor Mayor Mahan and Council members.

My name is Greg Tuyor, and I represent San Jose Firefighters Local 230.

I want to echo and support Fire Chief Sapien's memo and Fire Chief Dobson's recommendations, which provide clarity for developers while maintaining critical life safety precautions.

One area I strongly support is the alignment of the wildland urban interface construction criteria.

Recent California fire while California wildfires from Santa Rosa's Tubbs Fire to the Paradise Fire, Maui and Palisades, show that fires can reach dense suburban areas.

They've shown we fires no longer stay in the foothills, they must move rapidly to in our into our built environments.

Aligning and enforcing these standards provides a critical minimum buffer for San Jose, where wildland areas and residential neighborhoods meet.

Equally important are the chief's recommendations to not allow rooftop hazard hazardous materials.

From a firefighter's perspective perspective, this change would dramatically increase risk.

These materials, flammable, corrosive, and cat and reactive chemicals are intentionally required to be stored outside, away from occupants.

As for proposed changes to uh single staircase layouts or alternating tread designs, I share the chief's position that these are not reasonable, loose reasonable solutions for urban fire safety.

Alternating tread designs may save space, but they're not compatible with real-world fire ground operations.

Firefires wearing full gear would not be able to operate in a safe manner.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good evening, Council.

Alex Shore, Catalyze SV.

Here on behalf of a coalition of organizations, the Housing Action Coalition, San Jose Yimby, and Spur that are supporting the memo from the mayor and council members looking at ways to ensure that we're building as much housing as possible, including looking at different typologies for single stair building in San Jose.

I think today's question is a bit about expertise.

There's no one who knows more about fighting fires than firefighters.

And yet, when it comes to policy, that might be an area where the organizations know a thing or two.

And we know that by looking at other cities and learning the lessons from them, if it is working in places like Seattle, New York, and Honolulu, then perhaps it could work here.

And all we're asking you to do today is to study that.

In addition, the experts and the organizations supporting this, the thing we do know about is housing.

And that's an area where we all know at this city we are unfortunately trying to improve but still falling short.

And we don't want to see barriers to getting more housing built in this community, which is why it's so incredibly important.

We continue to look at every tool in our tool belt to solve the housing crisis, and we think that this memo from council members and the mayor is a good step.

So we hope you'll approve it and continue to move move forward with different ways of getting housing built.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good evening, Mayor, Council members.

My name's Danny Mangan.

I'm a union representative for uh local 483 sprinkle fitters.

Um I you know, I wrote something, and after hearing uh the uh presentation, the my my only concern that I've read through, you know, from memos and whatnot is the single stair um for buildings up to six uh six stories.

Um, you know, for me that's a concern as far as uh safety goes.

Um, you know, there's uh being in the field of fire protection, I I understand that uh you know a safe it's critical to have a safe egress and access, and uh uh you know I have that that concern for my membership and uh and for after completion of the project, and there's you know there's well-documented uh examples where single staircase designs have led to uh um tragedy due to limited escape for residents and uh restricted access access for firefighters.

So um, you know, I I just urge the council to um any directive that would move the city towards allowing single staircase high rise construction.

Um I would I would want that to be discussed further.

I know um the Office of the State Fire Marshal is has a work group that's uh discussing the single stair now.

So uh, you know, I would maybe yield to that decision.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Back to council.

All right.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh appreciate the public comment and the presentation, um, and appreciate all the passion around both fire safety and building housing and how we balance the two.

Something we always have to weigh in our policy decisions.

I do want to try to frame up the conversation a little bit.

Um, certainly public safety has to be a central consideration developing our building codes.

There's no doubt about it.

It is foundational.

Um, same time we also want to build housing.

And so uh we always have to figure out how we balance our need for housing for affordability against the steady progression in stricter and stricter requirements related to fire safety, environmental labor, and all in impacts on neighbors, all the many additional impacts and risks that we are constantly uh finding and finding better ways to minimize toward zero.

But if we do that to the point where we don't build any housing, uh which arguably we've been moving toward in California, we've got a broader societal problem.

Layers of regulation over the years have made new construction prohibitively expensive in California.

Cost of construction just over the last four years has gone up 34%, double the consumer price index.

Uh, and as a general principle, I I don't believe that at the local level we should compound the problem by adopting building codes in San Jose that go above state requirements without a very careful analysis of the cost and a very explicit trade-off that the council is able to weigh in on.

So the state of California we're talking about.

Uh when we choose at the local level to then discretionarily add more, we had better scrutinize every one of those decisions and be clear on how much time and how much cost it adds.

Um it's it's so to be clear here, we're not proposing single stair high rises.

High rises are defined by seven as seventy-five feet and above.

The focus here is looking at what New York, Seattleet, Hawaii have done looking at lower heights of four to six stories and studying again back to the conversational vote we just had on electrification of the fire engine fleet.

We're talking about analysis, stakeholder engagement, and actually being able to make an informed decision.

Data from a Pew study that came out in February of this year shows that with modern codes and sprinklers, single-stair buildings can be built safely.

Between 2012 and 2024, a 12-year period, there was not a single death in Seattle or New York than a modern four to six-story single stair building or the lack of a second exit contribute.

That doesn't mean it's the right decision today.

We need to study it more.

But I will note the United States is an outlier on this.

When you look around the world at the development of new buildings across Europe, Asia, and elsewhere, we are an outlier.

California is stricter than the nation, and we happen to take it upon ourselves to be even stricter locally, which is part of the reason we have the highest cost of construction.

RAN's study just showed the exact same apartment in Denver, Colorado, which is not known for cutting corners and putting their people at risk, is literally half the cost of building in the Bay Area.

So we have to weigh the trade-offs.

None of us want people to be less safe, uh, fully respect the input of our fire marshal and fire officials at the state level, but I do want to know each additional requirement we add above the state baseline and how much it costs.

Pew's study found that four to six story buildings with single stairways cost six to thirteen percent less to construct than dual stairwell buildings of that height, which is extremely meaningful when you consider that is the estimated additional cost of all local development fees combined.

We've spent a lot of time here debating, discussing a lot of hand wringing over reducing our fees, just the second stairwell, which New York and Seattle do not require for four to six story buildings is worth the entirety of all of our fees in terms of cost per unit.

Beyond the single staircase issue, I believe we should conduct a more thorough review of our own building code and identify more areas where we go above and beyond state requirements, assess the benefits and the rationale, as well as the extra cost, and make sure that we have a process going forward for understanding those trade-offs explicitly because decades of not being explicit about those trade-offs and having many of them made administratively within departments without a council vote has contributed to the ever escalating cost of building housing, not just here, but that is a pattern across our state.

Look, we just had a big debate recently over heat pumps, and as we talked about affordability, the council decided uh not to impose the mandate.

So I just, you know, I want to affirm we can't endlessly layer on new requirements, processes, and costs, and then say that we are serious about our housing affordability crisis and that we want our working families and our kids and grandkids to be able to afford to live in San Jose.

Doesn't mean we throw out everything we've been doing, it just means we are really clear with dollars and cents about what are the tradeoffs we're making.

I think it is a real mistake for us to have 541 bespoke building codes across the 483 municipalities and 58 counties in the state versus primarily defaulting to very rigorous state codes that already exist.

So that's where the memo is coming from.

Just like with the fire uh item we just discussed, I do want to be clear we're not dictating here cut all this stuff from code or don't do all these things.

We're asking for some analysis and to slow down and better understand cost because we keep adding 10, 20,000, 30,000 per year with each new cycle of regulation we add every year in this city, and it's time for us to think differently.

All right.

With that, I'm gonna turn to colleagues.

Um I will go uh, well, councilor DeWan has his hand up first, who's not a co-author on the group memo, but I'll go ahead and start with Council Member DeWan and then I'm gonna turn to Councilmember Tordillas, who was a co-author on the group memo.

Go ahead, council member.

Thank you, Mayor.

I appreciate you.

Allow me to go first here.

You know, the the cost of having two stairwells doesn't prohibit from continue to build housing.

And I think the truth matters the cost is that the land here is expensive, and now with the tariff, the material become expensive.

And I'll tell you this I I will not compromise on safety for our residents, or for our firefighters, including there will be our police department in there as well.

On item eight point two before us tonight concerned the city adoption of the two thousand twenty-five California building standards and local technical amendments.

This is an important step in keeping San Jose Building Code aligned with state law, advancing housing innovation and maintaining public safety.

However, I want to focus on a specific provision within this update, the proposal allowing residential building above three stories, only a single fire exit or single stairwell.

As a former fire captain, I can assure you if it's three-story or six stories building, is this critically will cause safety onto our firefighter, especially in the efficiency evacuation routes, not just for the resident trying to get out, but firefighter to get in.

When you combine these two directions, egress and ingress into one single stairwell that filled with smoke and water, you create a dangerous choke point that increased the risk for everyone involved.

Both the International Association Firefighter and Local 230 and the National Fallen Firefighter Foundation have publicly warned that single exit stair design pose significant life risk.

These concerns are not theoretical in fire incident.

A single stairs can quickly become impassable.

Trapping resident, limiting firefighter access, recognizing this, the California Building Standard Commission and the Office of State Fire Marshal have already formed a statewide work group to study the safety implication of these single exit single stair building.

That work group is expected to release its finding and recommended recommendation in January twenty twenty-six.

Given this timeline, I believe it would be premature for San Jose to move forward with adapting the single stair provision now before the technical analysis is completed.

Remember when there's a high-rise incident, one high-rise incident, which is above seventy-five feet, go up to maybe a five story with all the code in between.

Those stairwells will be will have water, will have smoke.

If that was your family that was in a six-story building, do you think you're gonna keep a really calm meaner when you're choking and you're fighting for your life coming out of that stairwell and when firefighter going up?

I don't think so.

And you're risking firefighter lives in order to make certain group more profitable.

That's not okay with me.

I will and I will not compromise on a resident safety or the safety of our firefighters.

I have a few questions.

Chief Dobson, with your 25-year experience, please tell me.

Is it critical to have two stairwells when you go into a building that's considered a high rise?

Definitely for a high rise, and actually could be more than that for a high-rise.

Uh the single stair uh is talking about going up to six stories in height.

Um the challenge that we have with anything above three stories is we don't have a ladder that can reach it.

We use a lot of ground ladders.

So now you're dependent on aerial apparatus, which are not really designed for egress, they're designed for rescue.

So you don't have a secondary means.

So I work on that work group that you were talking about.

I'm part of that.

I work with architects, designers, developers, academic scholars that are in there, as well as testing laboratories, and we're trying to look at all of these items and come up with recommendations to the Office of the State Fire Marshal and the Building Standards Commission.

That's our task.

That's what we're trying to work on.

Um, so like you, I would say before we can answer that question, we really need to research it.

We need to really look at it, and I think at the state level, we have the people in place, the experts in place to make that determination.

Um I don't think we need a secondary team here trying to answer the same questions that are being answered at a state level.

And Chief Dawson, are you on the single stair work group with the state fire marshal?

Yes, I'm a voting member.

And when you have six-store building, wouldn't you say most of our department personnel will be there?

Yes, our our response model.

We will we actually, it's not considered in the code of high rise, but anything above four stories as a standpipe.

And when we have standpipes, we our operations are high-rise in nature.

We carry everything aloft, and so yes, they they are challenging.

Although I will tell you, in going into the work group, I've tried to keep an open mind and hear out what the concerns are and to see if there's any engineering things that can satisfy what needs to be done.

I will tell you that they've done egress analysis and they've identified in a single stair some of the same things that you've said.

So, but they're looking at other options in that same work group, and that work group has been meeting since uh January of this year.

So it's it's been quite a long journey as far as uh of the people that have participated.

Thank you, Chief.

Mayor, I really appreciate your point that more requirements can make things more expensive.

That's exactly why I was saying earlier about electrification item.

There are definitely times when reducing requirement makes sense, but not when it comes to safety and saving lives.

So why is this different?

Why are we listening?

Why aren't we listening to our local firefighter or IAF?

We should trust the people who put their lives on the line and the professional.

Therefore, I motion for approval of my memo, accepting the staff recommendation, and direct the administration to monitor the group's progress and report to council shortly after January 2026 for further discussion.

All right.

Thanks, council member.

Um, I do just want to clarify we're not talking about high rises.

Just want to be clear about that.

Uh we're talking about smaller buildings and high-rises, and a few other things I may clarify later, just factually here, but let me turn to Council Rotor Dios next.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Chief and staff for the presentation and to members of the public who came to speak, as well as the more than a dozen members of the public and organizations who wrote letters of support for our memo.

I appreciate my colleagues' eagerness to think critically about the way that our building codes actually impact building costs here in San Jose.

Our memo would approve the staff recommendation with the exception of any local findings and amendments that go above and beyond state requirements, and as already been said, would direct the city manager to evaluate a local building coach change to allow construction of buildings up to six stories with a single staircase, plus any necessary legislative advocacy for changes to state law.

This is a policy area that I've been evangelizing for several years now, dating back to my time on the Planning Commission.

And I'm interested in it specifically because this has the potential to significantly decrease construction costs and help us meet our housing needs, but critically without compromising safety.

Speaking briefly just to the benefits that I see here and the potential from the perspective of district three, uh, this reform would unlock multifamily housing development on thousands of small-scale parcels across our district, near and uh in and near downtown and near our major transit stations, and it would critically enable that development to move forward without the time-consuming and costly process of slowly aggregating multiple adjacent parcels.

It would also support the implementation of several ongoing city initiatives like our missing middle housing strategy and our small multifamily housing policy, and it would also allow these parcels to be developed at densities that actually support the long-term fiscal health of our city, or otherwise they might be redeveloped with low density uses that would be a long-term drain on our general fund.

We've already spoken to some of the costs here.

The Pew study that was referenced shows that this could cut construction costs on these buildings by up to 13%.

For context, that is a more significant cost reduction than any single housing incentive program that the city has ever passed.

And it would do that without any need for public subsidy and without sacrificing our parks fees and our construction tax revenue.

I do want to take a moment to address some of the safety concerns that have been raised, since I think I can speak for everyone here, that we are not looking to compromise safety in any way in order to make housing less expensive.

And I also want to address the letter that was submitted from IAFF Local 230.

I want to start by saying that it was never our intention to exclude local 230 from this work.

I view the action today, as has already been said, as the very first step in that longer process.

And that longer process needs to include more research, needs to include stakeholder engagement, both with our fire union, our state fire marshal, members of our building trades, and other interested stakeholders.

In terms of the five specific fires that are cited in that letter, which have been referenced on the day as here, it is certainly true that all of those fires were tragedies, but it is also true that none of those fires were in buildings like the ones that we are proposing with this memo.

If you actually look at the specific fires that were referenced in that letter, they were all in historic buildings that were over 100 years old.

Four of the five fires were actually in single family homes or other low-rise structures.

Two of the buildings involved illegal unpermitted units, and none of the buildings in question had any modern safety features like sprinklers, fire-rated construction, self-closing doors, or pressurized stairwells.

The exact sorts of regulations that you would expect to be included in an updating building code, allowing higher single stair buildings.

And again, I am a firm believer that it is important that we evaluate the safety impacts of any code change.

But fortunately, we don't need to actually rely on anecdotes or speculation or individual isolated incidents, because as the mayor said, we have research in this area.

That Pew report found, it looked at the over 4,000 four to six-story modern single-stair buildings in New York City, and it found that over that 12-year period, their safety track record was identical to residential buildings in New York City that did not, or that had more than one staircase.

And as was already said, uh, that study identified zero fire deaths in that 12-year period, and sing modern single staircase buildings stemming from the lack of a second exit.

So I believe that the available data, uh, both domestically in Seattle and New York, and looking at comparative uh fire uh deaths abroad in Europe and Asia, which allow this uh type of building, shows that these buildings have a strong safety track record.

Uh and what's more, that Pew study also noted that modern apartment buildings have a fire death rate six times lower than older apartment buildings and single family homes.

So, to the extent that our current building codes are making it more difficult to build new housing.

We are having the direct effect of forcing more of our residents to live in structures that are less safe.

Uh finally, I just want to note that this is not some untested or radical policy idea.

Uh, it is a common sense reform that has seen increasing momentum across the country.

Uh, in addition to Seattle and New York, which have allowed single staircase buildings for decades.

Uh several states, including Washington, Montana, and Colorado have recently adopted statewide reforms to allow taller single staircase buildings.

Uh, and a growing number of cities have also legalized this new uh building typology, including Honolulu, Austin, Nashville, Memphis, Culver City, Santa Monica, and more.

Uh, so I really do think that this allows us to take a step showing that we are interested in innovative solutions to our housing crisis that decrease costs without impacts to public safety.

Uh, and moving forward with this direction, uh, we'll show that San Jose is committed to leading based on data and evidence, uh, that we are thoughtful in considering the costs and benefits of regulation, and that we are serious about addressing our housing crisis, even when that means shifting from the way that things have been done traditionally.

Uh, and with that, I would like to make a substitute motion uh to move our memo from myself, Mayor Mahan, and Council Members Campos, Cohen, and Mulcahi.

Thank you, Councilmember, appreciate you articulating that and sharing all the additional data, and I've got even more studies here that we can get into if we need to.

But uh let's go to Councilmember Ortiz.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, I want to thank um everyone here uh speaking uh in support of whichever side of position um you're on.

You know, I'm I'm one of the you know few, the minority on the council who does not own a home.

You know, I grew up working poor.

I know what it feels like to have a home be in foreclosure uh multiple times.

I know what it's like to sleep on parked benches to be homeless, and so I I definitely can get behind um policies and updates to standards that um can uh improve the affordability of housing.

Uh that being that being said, I think that it's important that when we are it the the age of all thing, you want to go fast, go alone.

You want to go far, you go together.

And when we introduce policies that affect bargaining units and affect the safety of you know individuals we rely on to be first responders, uh I think it's important to consult them and and um I'm not saying no forever, but um you know, when when I have firefighters coming, you know, before us here on the city council warning that there is safety hazards for residents and for our first responders, that's that's something that I I can't support.

But that that doesn't mean that you know this may not may be a good policy, um, but um I want to make sure that before I I support something that I do so in consultation with those that may uh it may affect.

So I'm uh I'm currently gonna vote no, but that doesn't mean it's a bad policy.

I'm you know, not talking bad about the policy in theory.

Thank you.

Thanks, council member.

Appreciate that.

I just want to clarify the motion, the substitute motion is to study, not to implement this change.

All right, let's go to Councilor O'Cohen.

Yeah, thank you.

And I want to thank staff for the thorough update in our building codes.

It's a lot of work to align our codes with state standards to update our codes for um with new um modern techniques and to especially on the fire side, make sure that we're updating our codes for the maximum fire safety given what we're seeing around California.

And I I really appreciate the updates around the urban wildlife urban interface.

My district and many of our districts do have a large portion of our that are affected by that, so we want to make sure that we are um that we are supportive of whatever code we could codes we can do for construction.

I do have one question on that, I on that element.

Um I see see in the in the report that all new buildings will have to have the the new um more uh fire-resistant front doors.

I think it was like a 20-minute fire door.

Is that that is that correct?

There's a new there's a updated standard on fire doors on front doors.

Yes, so there is a whole new code that deals specifically with wildland.

So they've moved it out of the building code, fire code, and actually given its own code because it's that important.

So yes, there is rating on uh windows, doors, there are uh the type of construction, the boxed eaves, there's there's numerous requirements with the idea that it prevents embers from being cast into the attic space or underneath the house, which then contributes to the fire and the propagation from unit to unit.

And this is code that came out that's part of this new updated state codes that we're adopting.

This is correct, like a San Jose-specific code change.

Does this code apply to existing buildings when replacements are made, or is it just for new building construction?

It's for new building construction.

There's a recommendation, of course, from the fire service as well as the building department.

If if if you were in those areas, home hardening is something that you should consider, but it is not a requirement at this point.

And it's not a necessarily requirement if somebody's doing a modernization in an existing home that's that's not in the urban wildlife interface, but is in other parts of the city.

Um, yeah, it would not be required in other parts of the city.

Um and even then you would I mean you it would have to be a new home to really have to have this upgrade.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

Um I just wanted to then generally comment that um you know, here in Silicon Valley, we're known for our innovation for for thinking differently for for pushing to new for new technologies, new standards, for understanding new ways of doing things, and there's a lot of rapid changes in science and technology.

We have new stuff we should be willing to adopt new standards, new construction methods, and adopt new technologies, and it is that innovation that will solve many of our problems, including our housing crisis, and so I'm uh excited for us to always be exploring uh what we can do um to use new approaches to save costs.

Uh we've we've talked so much about um cost as the barrier to what we're doing, and we also need to then try everything we can to reduce costs.

So we should be exploring as this uh proposal brings forward ways to save money, and I was very appreciative of my colleagues' comments um about uh new housing being the way to actually make people move into safer conditions rather than stay in older unsafe conditions.

So I want to thank you for uh your leadership on this issue, Councilmember.

Thanks, Council Rocco, appreciate that.

Let me go to Councilmore Condulas.

Uh thank you.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

I I um wanna start off by thanking my colleagues for for the wonderful conversation and and um the the debate.

Um, you know, I I appreciate um the zeal of uh council member Duan and you know his comments, especially as it relates to his experience as a firefighter.

Um I also appreciate the the spirit of the memorandum authored by my colleagues uh uh attempting to reduce the building costs in our city um that that could uh potentially open the door to to more housing development in the right areas.

Um, you know, I I do have concerns, especially with you know the the Silicon Valley mentality, a couple of my colleagues have mentioned on you know failing fast and and willing to to break something and learn something, but with lives, I uh that's not something that I'm willing to fail at all.

And so this is one of those precarious um uh issues that I think we we need to be very very meticulous uh with and you know I understand the memorandum is to evaluate um and and bring back the opportunity to discuss what that looks like uh to get rid of a second stairwell and and to iterate on on something new.

I I totally appreciate that, but there's there's several questions that I have with the passage of AB 835 in 2023.

Uh the the work group is gonna come up with uh recommendations, I believe, by January.

Um and you know, I'm hoping some of those recommendations can inform.

Um, you know, I I can kind of read the tea leaves um on whatever comes comes back to councils is that is that is that what what you're thinking absolutely okay um and uh i understand it was only three stories so what we're asking for uh or what what the memorandum is asking from my colleagues is six stories correct no the the work group is evaluating up to six stories okay okay so there there is no there's no uh there's no uh gap there there's no delta there okay good um and so um with regards to the fire um the fire code in seattle which is what was referenced um I believe they have a a cap on the number of units per floor uh do we have some sort of cap like that in our city go ahead so the the current building code allows you to have one stair up to three stories and no more than four units per floor okay uh seattle allows it up to five stories no more than four units per floor got it okay um and and also um the the uh uh council member tordillos mentioned uh uh requirement for fire protection measures fire resistive construction materials of up to an hour and automated sprinkler systems in each unit do we require that in our codes as of now currently so not all of that sprinklers are required for new construction but some of these things are the measures the cities have put in place to justify fair enough and that's what I'm I'm I'm asking about um and then there's also a requirement about 20 feet or less of travel distance between the staircase and the entrance of any unit that's also um that's also one of the requirements that they have do we have any sort of requirement uh yeah do that is a city requirement as well okay that's a Seattle do we have any requirements for distance between unit entrance and or um and or staircase not from the unit entrance to the staircase but there is a requirement for the farthest point you could be in your house to you get out.

Got it okay um and and so okay so the let there there's several questions and and there's there's all these different uh scenarios that I think of in my mind and and um and so that's that's why I'm I'm will I was willing to second the motion and appreciate uh the the the concerns brought forth by you know who I uh folks who I consider experts in the field the folks who are actually out there fighting fires and um while I I also appreciate the willingness to try to figure out how we unlock uh uh unit potential there's I think there's um there's several questions that that needs that need to be answered um uh okay um I I had a question with regards to the first half of of the um local amendment the the first portion of the of the memo with regards to uh the building codes reference in A2A3 C2 and C3 um is there um I believe those are reach codes so they're they go above they go above the building codes uh uh of what the state has enacted is that is that correct so we have amendments that are currently approved currently in the municipal code uh related to uh jipboard shear walls that we don't allow jipboard shear walls in San Jose to the it's not great for earthquakes okay um and we're just proposing to keep that moving forward got it okay yeah I was gonna say that the the other numbers there although I had challenges understanding those numbers I think that it uh does not move forward uh many of the amendments that we're proposing as far as the fire department got it okay all right um well no uh that that's that's all for now uh but uh again I appreciate the opportunity to have this dialogue with my colleagues on the dice.

Thank you.

Thanks, Council member.

Appreciate it um I do just want to note the goal is explicitly not to fail fast.

It's to study it.

So just want to be clear about that point of information I was just I was just quoting one of our colleagues so uh uh regard regardless, you know that's not here I didn't hear it, but it sounds good.

Um let's go to council member cometh okay thank you so much.

Um I just wanted clarification.

The motion on the floor um does not include uh the building code references in um A two and three and C two and three.

I'm just wondering in terms of its effects on what we're gonna do.

Um, how does that affect moving forward?

So my understanding of the memo is that it was new amendments, um, would need the analysis.

So building for Title 24 is not proposing any new amendments, they're existing.

Okay, so it's not going to affect anything else.

Well, in the fire department, we have eight new amendments.

Some of those you heard that were policies to try and streamline that process, as well as the alternating tread and then the hazardous material storage on top of roofs being considered outdoor storage.

So that means that the altering tread would not be included in uh the new.

Yeah, so we just as authors of the memo interject.

I I think that's right.

The idea is to request more analysis and discussion of costs and trade-offs on any of the enumerated new local codes that go above and beyond state law and state code.

We have had a habit in San Jose of at an administrative level, not even council policy, adding additional local rules and requirements over and above the state's existing code.

Yeah.

I was just curious as to what is it gonna include and what is it not going to include.

So right now, since it doesn't include it, this whole situation with the alternating uh uh staircase is not going to be included.

I think I think we need to uh if we are gonna uh evaluate, I would suggest that that would um be something we uh we add in there that these are to be looked at uh because that's not what it says here, right?

So um, so that's that's one thing uh in terms of of the effects of some of these items.

If we're not gonna do them all, uh because they're new, but you know, to me that's that's very relevant in terms of safety issues, and I think it's worth bringing forward.

Um so that's one thing that I I would be concerned about.

The other thing is, and you know, quite frankly, I think that it's important to not have obstacles uh in terms of uh looking at um trying to develop more housing, but at the same time, if there are these elements that make it more hazardous for our firefighters, that's a that's a that's a problem, and I think that we have to remedy some of those situations.

So I think that I have a little bit of a problem with that, and I also think that um we need to uh include um those who are the experts uh and certainly our um firefighters who um I I feel should be and need to be part of the conversation, also you know, those in our in our building trades.

I think that it's important for them to be part of the conversation, they were not, and you know that does happen, but I think that's pretty important.

So I don't know if there is a um is as part of this uh evaluating the part two in the memo, you would bring back what has been learned from uh the working group.

Is that what the idea is?

I don't think we've explored exactly what would happen.

I think many of the policies would remain just that policies.

There are many uh parts of the fire code that uh leave as far as the requirements up to the fire code official, and so we've been the reason why we're pushing those forward is that recommendations of our customers to have one place to look for these items, so those would remain policies, um, and then we we don't go above the codes on those policies.

We just dictate what we fill the void of what the code has.

There's ambiguity built into the code where it says it's you know, for example, up to the building official, up to the fire official to make that determination.

I see.

Okay.

Well, um, I would ask for a friendly amendment that we include the firefighters in the discussions as we evaluate and take a look at this, and you know, also the items that have been omitted, or you know, any new findings or new adoptions, that we have a conversation with our local 230 um as part of of looking at this because I think at the end of the day, we want everyone to be safe.

And uh certainly, you know, it's not something that I think we take lightly.

Uh yes, we want housing, but not at the expense of people's lives, and so I think that having more uh conversations with uh with our firefighters and and you know, building um trades would would help at least inform uh this uh evaluation.

I completely agree.

You know, I view the vote today as really the start of the conversation, not the end of the conversation, and I completely agree that moving forward as part of this evaluation.

We want to solicit feedback and have more discussions with both our fire uh department, our state fire marshal, and their working group and our local building trades.

So happy to accept the friendly amendment.

And can you remind me it was the who was the second or council made?

Is that okay with you?

You have to also approve for it to be included.

Okay, thank you.

Let's go to uh thank you, Councilmember.

Let's go to Vice Mayor.

Well, Councilmember Kamei, you kind of stole my approach.

It's going to see how we could bring this all together by approach uh by bringing in the same friendly amendment, although I'd like to expand it to all stakeholders.

Fire marshal's great, but we want to bring in builders and other interested.

So if you'll accept that as a great thank you.

Then I will be happy to accept uh to approve the motion and the amendments.

Thanks, Vice Mayor.

Appreciate that.

Let me go to council member campus.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, and I want to thank my colleagues for their sincere concern and appreciation of safety standards that protect uh both our firefighters and our civilians.

Just have one quick question to staff.

Um with the current uh substitute motion on the floor.

If it passes, and and we've just heard friendly amendments that are asking for this.

So can the city administration confirm that um in addition to the San Jose Fire Department, we will also include um IAFF local 230, sprinkler fitters, local 483, and other labor partners in the community outreach key partners, um, conversation that will be conducted during the evaluation of single stair amendments.

Is this for the I'm just trying to understand is this for the original uh motion or the this is the current motion on the current motion, yeah.

With a friendly amendment, I don't speak for the other trades, but we'll be happy to participate as far as the fire department goes.

I know.

So, I believe that was I believe everybody you listed is included in the book.

So we need we will be it will do uh a very inclusive stakeholder outreach when as the as the department evaluates this uh direct and does this direction and implements this direction.

So we will be very inclusive in our stakeholder outreach.

So I'll just confirm that as and that is in the direction.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Um I know that we heard um from our firefighters in addition to our sprinkler fitters, and um it's all part of the same conversation, it's all part of making sure that our buildings are safe and that we are not compromising on safety um with this policy, and so I um am also in support of the current motion on the floor.

Thanks, Councilmember.

All right, we're coming back around for a second round of comments.

Councilmember Duan.

Thank you very much, Mayor.

In my memorandum, it is stated direct administration to monitor the work group progress, bringing forward a report to the city council for consideration shortly after the report is published in January 2026.

It's already included in my memorandum.

And you know, if we waited seven, well, two and a half months, so it's about seventy-five days for the work group to come up with the recommendation.

It's not going to hurt anyone, it's not going to change, unless the recommendation, you know, totally for it.

We need to allow our our state fire marshal or experts in both the IAFF, Local 230, and other departments to give us their thought process, especially in the work group in January 2026, that is stated very clearly in my memorandum.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

I also just wanted to push back against some of the things that have been said about this being a move fast and break things sort of policy.

That is not at all how I view this, and we've reiterated that we do want to evaluate safety and make sure that we are not compromising that in the sake of uh housing development.

Uh, but I really don't think that we are here.

We are pointing to a housing type that has been proven to be safe over the span of many years in Seattle and in New York City, and uh a housing type which is one of the most common types of housing built all across the world in countries spanning decades, including countries that have a much better track record with fire safety than we do, uh both in the United States and here in San Jose.

Uh, just want to reiterate that this is again the first step in the process, completely supportive of the friendly amendments that have been made to have a very inclusive stakeholder outreach as this process moves forward.

Uh, but I do think that this is a valuable uh action to take today to show that San Jose is interested in innovative approaches to simultaneously tackling safety while also reducing housing costs.

Um, and I would note uh that this is again the policy uh that would have one of the most significant impacts in terms of decreasing construction costs that council has ever passed.

Uh, and to the extent that this opens up more housing development, I think this is this has the opportunity to be a win-win in terms of building more housing for our communities that we desperately need, providing more jobs for all of our unionized workers in the building trades, uh, while also um maintaining those same high safety standards.

So I am hopeful that we are able to come together and pass this today.

Thank you.

Thanks, Councilmember, Councilmember Condelas.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, no, uh I uh yeah, you know, this is uh regardless of what was said, this is you know, the fail fast uh mentality is never a good conversation.

We're talking about uh lives and public safety safety codes.

But uh needless to say, we live where we live.

I I I want to just uh give give kudos to to my colleagues and and also for for oh everybody to uh find a middle ground and a pathway forward, especially because ultimately the goal is to make sure that our stakeholders, whether it's local 230 or whether it's um, you know, the the the folks who are expert experts in this field to get them looped in into the conversation and and so I will be supporting um the the the motion on the floor with the or the submotion on the floor with uh the the friendly amendments uh provided.

Thank you.

Thanks, councilmember.

Appreciate that.

Uh I think we've exhausted everybody's comments.

Let's vote.

This motion passes 9 to 2 with uh councilmember Ortiz and Dewan voting no.

Okay, thank you very much.

All right, thank you all.

Uh we are on to open forum, which is an opportunity for members of the public to comment on city business that was not on today's agenda.

Do we have any comment cards?

Yes, we have two.

Mark Trout and Deborah Goldine.

Please make your way to the podium.

I was really glad Mr.

Ortiz uh brought up uh if a stranger sojourned with thee in your land, you shall not vex him.

But the stranger that dwells with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

I am the Lord your God.

But you're pulling it out of context because uh when Israel came out of Egypt and it came to the border of uh Edom, they wouldn't let him pass through their border, and it said, thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border.

Can we try to bring it back to city business?

Right.

This is city business.

All of you are anarchists, you're all siding with the felons, the illegal aliens, and nobody is siding with the people.

And you're responsible.

See, Christians are not anarchists, they're not lawless.

Peter lost his life at the hands of the government, and so did Paul.

And let's see what Peter said.

You know what Peter said?

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king is supreme, or under governors as under them that are sent by him for what?

The punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

So think about it.

This is your you're going to answer to God.

When you die, I'm telling you, God's gonna bring this up.

Now in our church bulletin, uh it talks about words, and uh, it says, uh our Lord tells us that every idle word that men speak, they will give account of in the day of judgment.

And he adds, by your words, you'll be justified.

Thank you.

Your time has ended.

Next speaker, please.

We have Deborah, and we received a new card, Churchill.

Okay, if you heard your name called, please come on.

Okay, what were the cards that were submitted again?

Churchill and Deborah Goldine.

Go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon.

Um, this is related to um human trafficking.

I was the face of uh your face of homelessness.

Now I'm your face of human trafficking.

I have been trying to reach out to your um people, Matt uh Mayor Matt Mahan, and I'm very disappointed in the outcome.

I've showed up at many uh town hall meetings to express my safety concerns, particularly with women and children, regarding your police department.

I have questions that need to be answered by the police department, and they're not cooperating.

Can I give you a uh small envelope?

Um, requesting an in-person meeting with the chief of police, and I'm having a really hard time trying to get through to the chief of police, and this is very pertinent because I spent 12 years working at CDCR.

I'm not a criminal, I'm an asset to your community, and I'm trying to get my life cleared up.

I have a warrant for my arrest based on a child support failure to pay.

I'm homeless with no resources, something's wrong with that picture.

And uh Senator Sam Licardo's interns are not cooperating, so I've already reached the public level of concern.

And um, I just wish that it can be handled appropriately in an and in a timely manner.

My request for an in-person meeting, it's going to be a 15-minute one, but can I give you this packet?

If you could just give it to the clerk, okay, thank you.

I just want to make sure that you get it because thank you.

We received one additional card from Sean.

Every time I come here to talk, or every time I come to this meeting, there's no additional agendas down here for disabled folks.

Every time I come here, I have to take my uh parking ticket and give it to somebody else to take it to the top to get it validated.

And almost every time I come here, I have to ask somebody else to move because the disabled seats have a little tiny marker on them that's this big, the little blue disabled person that nobody can see and nobody is aware of.

I've asked numerous times, I've spoken to Lee about it, and none of this has changed.

So I don't understand when we're supposed to be so great about accessibility and ADA, you're not.

It's like horrible.

Like every time I'm here, I'm dependent on somebody else.

I'm dependent on somebody if they're gonna go to the top and bring down an agenda.

I'm dependent on somebody to go up to the top and do my parking validation.

I'm I have to sit there, especially when it's full, and go, excuse me, are you disabled?

No, can you move?

I shouldn't have to do that.

It should be clearly marked.

It's embarrassing to have to do that, and it's also awkward.

As much of a badass as I can be, I'm actually naturally shy.

Nobody believes that.

But when it's just me and I'm not behind my my shield of activism, it's really hard for me to go up to somebody and go, Hi, are you disabled?

No.

Can you move?

And it's really weird watching a whole row move for you.

It should be marked, it should be simple.

There should be agendas here.

There should be a way to act too.

Thanks for the feedback.

Thank you.

So our final card is from Deborah Golding.

It doesn't appear that she's present.

Um so back to the council.

Okay, thank you, Megan.

Thank you all.

We're adjourned.